Wolf pack behaviours
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah
scientific evidence. It adds up, your claims do not.
I recommend you check up with some updated conceptions of it since you
obviously got no real good internal representation of it (or you really
missed your interpretation baddly):
http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-pack.html
--
I could run like the wind just to be with you.
Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah
C'ya!
--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Trst je naš, Dunaja ne damo; Solmuna pa tud ne. Za vstop v EU. ;]
The future of AI is in technology integration,
we have prepared everything for you:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm
MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
David
vanquished be until great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves.
hill shall come against him.
>According to your advice, I have checked up my internal conceptions with
>scientific evidence. It adds up, your claims do not.
I'm sorry, But I don't know of ANY (reputable) scientist who would
belive that you realy are a werewolf.
I'm afraid you must emprically prove that you are a werewolf.
Otherwise, all that spews from your fingers and mouth is BULLSHIT.
HTH.
---
http://www.wsws.org
---
War is the terrorism of the rich
Terrorism is the war of the poor
The Demon Shiya
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah wrote:
>
> According to your advice, I have checked up my internal conceptions with
> scientific evidence. It adds up, your claims do not.
Well, you must not be talking to me as my claims were about how you
still are human, and associating you with humans. This would, of course,
imply that not only would you want to associate yourself with a wolf,
but that you would also somehow need to show that you are no longer
human. Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe that
due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
personification.
You may have a bunch of "packmates" however, this does not mean anything
other than you calling them something other than friends. You may not
think of sex at every moment, but neither does the rest of the human
race. Hell, one might even claim humans can be almost carnivorous as the
atkins diet has shown. Actually humans do seem to range through almost
all ends of that spectrum. If you want to be considered a wolf, or even
closer to a werewolf you would need to somehow be different from a
human.
Keep clinging, but don't be too suprised when you lie falls apart
because you only focussed on half the story.
Safari
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah
> I'm sorry, But I don't know of ANY (reputable) scientist who would
> belive that you realy are a werewolf.
>
> I'm afraid you must emprically prove that you are a werewolf.
> Otherwise, all that spews from your fingers and mouth is BULLSHIT.
Oh, I have just empiricaly prooven you are a troll unworthy of my answer
or anyone else's attention for that matter.
Now kindly shut up.
Shadow Walker
choose to show. I have seen and read much better and definitely written by
biologist's, behaviorist's and zoologists, the list goes on and on.
--
-------
"Everyone's opinion is their own truth."
-============}xxxxxo Shadow Walker oxxxxx{============-
You laugh at me because I am different. I laugh at you because you are all
the same.
-------
"CyberLegend aka Jure Sah" <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote in message
news:3ECE337F...@guest.arnes.si...
The Demon Shiya
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah wrote:
>
> David wrote:
> > I'm sorry, But I don't know of ANY (reputable) scientist who would
> > belive that you realy are a werewolf.
> >
> > I'm afraid you must emprically prove that you are a werewolf.
> > Otherwise, all that spews from your fingers and mouth is BULLSHIT.
>
> Oh, I have just empiricaly prooven you are a troll unworthy of my answer
> or anyone else's attention for that matter.
>
> Now kindly shut up.
You could have just said that you cannot.
Safari
SONICIDE
understand what a werewolf is , that being a human that views themselves as
in someway having a wolflike nature or spirit and/or behaving in an animal
like manner (see your local dictionary). Though I don't suppose it is really
something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
beliefs. Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just accept
and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we didn't
do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience, we
just take their word for it. Kind of like taking the word of the FDA that
certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
people.
If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
separate things.
Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being anything
related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
always has been.
whitefell
"David" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ecf7bbe...@news.cis.dfn.de...
SONICIDE
The Demon Shiya
SONICIDE wrote:
>
> Its the easiest thing to 'prove' you are a werewolf, you just don't
> understand what a werewolf is , that being a human that views themselves as
> in someway having a wolflike nature or spirit and/or behaving in an animal
> like manner (see your local dictionary).
wolflike nature or spirit? What does that mean? Wolf is an entity. It
has definition. You can classify a wolf when you see it as a wolf.
Therefor there is a lupine essence which is something a wolf would
possess that would make it able to be defined as a wolf. What is that
essence? or easier and more to the point, what is the difference between
that essence and the essence that is human. What was that thingy occam's
razor or something like that that says that the simplest explanation is
most likely true. If you fit into the human spirit or essence than there
really is no reason aside from pride and ego to claim to be a wolf.
At any rate, the same logic could apply to behaving like an animal.
Let's quantify for a minute (Since you want to define) how many
intrinsically human actions you make throughout the day as compared with
how many animal like things you do. I'll even give you things like
growling, and drooling as wolfy things. I bet by the end of the count
you do many more human things than lupine.
Though I don't suppose it is really
> something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
> beliefs.
Real christians (You are claiming to be a real werewolf aren't you) live
every day by the rules in the bible, and live their lives under it's
direction. How often do you live as a wolf would?
Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just accept
> and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we didn't
> do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience, we
> just take their word for it. Kind of like taking the word of the FDA that
> certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
> people.
*Yawn* Nice political rant. OTOH there is still quantifiable evidence
that fits the claims. How often during the day do you behave like an
animal, and what was the difference between human and wolf again.
>
> If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
> into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
> separate things.
> Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being anything
> related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
> extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
>
> But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
> always has been.
Yeah, pretty much.
Safari
Wanderer
<cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
certain thing):
In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different from
human. (Paragraph 2)
Humans exhibit all types of behaviors, preferences, and symptoms.
(Paragraph 1)
If we take this as a syllogism, then your position boils down to: Because
nothing can be different from a human, there are only humans. (I think that
needs rewording, don't you?)
A similar moment comes at the end of paragraph 1:
> Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
> exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe that
> due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
> personification.
In one sentence, you dismiss similarities between humans and animals. In
the next, you use the same similarities you just dismissed to justify the
development of personification.
Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
Yours with a wolfish grin,
The inconsistency-spotting,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
The Demon Shiya
Wanderer wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> <cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
Hey, wondering is back :)
>
> Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
> certain thing):
If I had known a texan would be reading it I would have used much
smaller words.
>
> In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different from
> human. (Paragraph 2)
Seems pretty simple to me. Why do I get the feeling you could not grasp
that fact?
>
> Humans exhibit all types of behaviors, preferences, and symptoms.
> (Paragraph 1)
Actually, I did not say all, but in the current defined set cyber has
come up with then it would be true.
>
> If we take this as a syllogism, then your position boils down to: Because
> nothing can be different from a human, there are only humans. (I think that
> needs rewording, don't you?)
Again, in the current set that cyber has defined this would be a
trueism, but since you want to bring this into the whole world then you
are right it is false. It is a nice try there wondering, but I hope you
weren't pinning your whole point on that.
>
> A similar moment comes at the end of paragraph 1:
>
> > Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
> > exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe that
> > due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
> > personification.
>
> In one sentence, you dismiss similarities between humans and animals. In
> the next, you use the same similarities you just dismissed to justify the
> development of personification.
Sorry, forgot a do not in there. Aside from my poor typing skills is the
straw man the only point you have?
>
> Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
If you can't say it yourself, don't bother.
>
> http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
>
> After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
Someday there might be a point to your ramblings.
>
> Yours with a wolfish grin,
But not today.
Well, at least you are consistant there chucky. Maybe you should stick
to cookbooks.
Safari
Wanderer
news:3ED7EC6C...@goingsomewhere.com...
>
>
> Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > <cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
>
> Hey, wondering is back :)
<cocks head on the other side> Why, yes. I have extra time this week...
I'm at home taking care of my mother. It's a family thing, Saf... you
wouldn't understand.
> >
> > Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
> > certain thing):
>
> If I had known a texan would be reading it I would have used much
> smaller words.
Oh, I have no argument, confusion or discrepancy with regard to
multisyllabic linguistic forms. Your choice of order and usage is highly
questionable, however.
> >
> > In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different
from
> > human. (Paragraph 2)
>
> Seems pretty simple to me. Why do I get the feeling you could not grasp
> that fact?
<blink> If you don't like syllogisms, O Beast Of Many Names, just say so.
I shall rack my poor little repertoire for something more befitting a
creature of your intellectual stature.
Now, where was that McGuffy's Reader... ?
> >
> > Humans exhibit all types of behaviors, preferences, and symptoms.
> > (Paragraph 1)
>
> Actually, I did not say all, but in the current defined set cyber has
> come up with then it would be true.
<bows head> My apologies, O confrontational computer cat. Your precise
words were: "Actually humans do seem to range through almost all ends of
that spectrum". My apologies for the lack of punctuation, but I feel quotes
should appear as written.
> >
> > If we take this as a syllogism, then your position boils down to:
Because
> > nothing can be different from a human, there are only humans. (I think
that
> > needs rewording, don't you?)
>
> Again, in the current set that cyber has defined this would be a
> trueism, but since you want to bring this into the whole world then you
> are right it is false. It is a nice try there wondering, but I hope you
> weren't pinning your whole point on that.
<sniff> Hardly. Given the huge variations in humans, attempting to
characterize a single human subset as "normal" is questionable at best. (At
worst, it is intellectually dishonest.) Thus, I cannot point to humanity as
a gudeline for this "wereness" you claim to know so much about, any more
than you.
> >
> > A similar moment comes at the end of paragraph 1:
> >
> > > Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
> > > exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe
that
> > > due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
> > > personification.
> >
> > In one sentence, you dismiss similarities between humans and animals.
In
> > the next, you use the same similarities you just dismissed to justify
the
> > development of personification.
>
> Sorry, forgot a do not in there. Aside from my poor typing skills is the
> straw man the only point you have?
<glower> Safari Denvarion Whitelion, that is not poor typing. That is poor
editing, and by extension a poor thinking process.
> >
> > Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
>
> If you can't say it yourself, don't bother.
> >
> > http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
> >
> > After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
>
> Someday there might be a point to your ramblings.
<shakes head> It's all right, Safari... I know not everywere has the luxury
of having been pronounced sane by a licensed psychiatrist. You really don't
have to envy me.
> >
> > Yours with a wolfish grin,
>
> But not today.
>
> Well, at least you are consistant there chucky. Maybe you should stick
> to cookbooks.
>
Speaking of which, when may I expect your recipe? Not that I expect much...
tuna salad, perhaps? After all, it isn't like you need to cook for a
gathering of friends or anything...
Yours deadpan,
The wolfish,
The Demon Shiya
Wanderer wrote:
>
> "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3ED7EC6C...@goingsomewhere.com...
> >
> >
> > Wanderer wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > <cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
> >
> > Hey, wondering is back :)
>
> <cocks head on the other side> Why, yes. I have extra time this week...
> I'm at home taking care of my mother. It's a family thing, Saf... you
> wouldn't understand.
You are right. I don't have to use mom's internet connection to post.
>
> > >
> > > Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
> > > certain thing):
> >
> > If I had known a texan would be reading it I would have used much
> > smaller words.
>
> Oh, I have no argument, confusion or discrepancy with regard to
> multisyllabic linguistic forms. Your choice of order and usage is highly
> questionable, however.
You could have just told me to be more careful next time.
>
> > >
> > > In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different
> from
> > > human. (Paragraph 2)
> >
> > Seems pretty simple to me. Why do I get the feeling you could not grasp
> > that fact?
>
> <blink> If you don't like syllogisms, O Beast Of Many Names, just say so.
> I shall rack my poor little repertoire for something more befitting a
> creature of your intellectual stature.
>
> Now, where was that McGuffy's Reader... ?
I hope that you get to a point soon.
>
> > >
> > > Humans exhibit all types of behaviors, preferences, and symptoms.
> > > (Paragraph 1)
> >
> > Actually, I did not say all, but in the current defined set cyber has
> > come up with then it would be true.
>
> <bows head> My apologies, O confrontational computer cat. Your precise
> words were: "Actually humans do seem to range through almost all ends of
> that spectrum". My apologies for the lack of punctuation, but I feel quotes
> should appear as written.
So, you did see the word almost? Did you not understand it? Glad I
didn't use the word inside.
>
> > >
> > > If we take this as a syllogism, then your position boils down to:
> Because
> > > nothing can be different from a human, there are only humans. (I think
> that
> > > needs rewording, don't you?)
> >
> > Again, in the current set that cyber has defined this would be a
> > trueism, but since you want to bring this into the whole world then you
> > are right it is false. It is a nice try there wondering, but I hope you
> > weren't pinning your whole point on that.
>
> <sniff> Hardly.
Should I hold my breath waiting for more?
Given the huge variations in humans, attempting to
> characterize a single human subset as "normal" is questionable at best.
The objject is not to classify humans, but to instead classify how one
is outside the normal human set they were born into. Seriously, the
whole point is that for some reason weres are outside normal human
parameters. Since the "Normal" set does include such wide variations one
could easily conclude that none of you lackwits have gone beyond human
in any way. However, if you want to start playing the lets define normal
subset games that is fine, but it is way outside the point.
(At
> worst, it is intellectually dishonest.) Thus, I cannot point to humanity as
> a gudeline for this "wereness" you claim to know so much about, any more
> than you.
>
It is quite unfortunate for me that all you want to do is play these
poor games of dancing around the real point. That may work on your
little groups outside here, and the poor pathetic losers who would
believe anything as long as you told them they fit in, but this pathetic
distraction was not only obvious, but illustrated the fact that I still
need to find some way to dumb down the point for texans.
> > >
> > > A similar moment comes at the end of paragraph 1:
> > >
> > > > Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
> > > > exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe
> that
> > > > due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
> > > > personification.
> > >
> > > In one sentence, you dismiss similarities between humans and animals.
> In
> > > the next, you use the same similarities you just dismissed to justify
> the
> > > development of personification.
> >
> > Sorry, forgot a do not in there. Aside from my poor typing skills is the
> > straw man the only point you have?
>
> <glower> Safari Denvarion Whitelion, that is not poor typing.
Actually, it is exactly what it is chucky, but take whatever victory you
can get. i am sure they are few and far between.
That is poor
> editing, and by extension a poor thinking process.
Considering I don't edit, it is poor typing. Maybe you go over and over
your words, but I rarely even look at what I type until someone responds
to it. But, you win. i edit badly. So, to clarify, my "editing" skills
and the straw man are all you have?
>
> > >
> > > Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
> >
> > If you can't say it yourself, don't bother.
> > >
> > > http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
> > >
> > > After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
> >
> > Someday there might be a point to your ramblings.
>
> <shakes head> It's all right, Safari... I know not everywere has the luxury
> of having been pronounced sane by a licensed psychiatrist. You really don't
> have to envy me.
>
Well, if you can't win with a real point, claim to be sane. BTW plenty
of idiots are sane. Are you going to have a point soon, or just keep
telling us a shrink thought you were sane?
> > >
> > > Yours with a wolfish grin,
> >
> > But not today.
> >
> > Well, at least you are consistant there chucky. Maybe you should stick
> > to cookbooks.
> >
>
> Speaking of which, when may I expect your recipe? Not that I expect much...
> tuna salad, perhaps? After all, it isn't like you need to cook for a
> gathering of friends or anything...
So, in conclusion, you have attempted to debunk my statements with a
straw man, by commenting on my poor "editing," because you are sane, and
because I have no friends. Well, as strong as your argument is I still
have to ask if you have a real point?
Oh, and what would be my motivation to contribute to a cookbook designed
to line your pockets with money?
Safari
Wanderer
>
> You are right. I don't have to use mom's internet connection to post.
<smirk> Funny how you ignore Kamatu's earlier statement that this e-mail is
registered in *my* name, eh, "Princess"? <bow> All bought and paid for by
yours truly, along with the computer. <cocks head> It's Mother's *phone*,
of course, in Mother's *house*... was that what you were trying to insult me
about? <blink> Seems silly to consider staying at home to help your poor,
sick mother a *bad* thing... but, whatever floats your boat.
> You could have just told me to be more careful next time.
<smiling nod> Noted.
>
> I hope that you get to a point soon.
<mock horror> But, Safari, you *are* the point! You said so yourself!
> >
> > <bows head> My apologies, O confrontational computer cat. Your precise
> > words were: "Actually humans do seem to range through almost all ends
of
> > that spectrum". My apologies for the lack of punctuation, but I feel
quotes
> > should appear as written.
>
> So, you did see the word almost? Did you not understand it? Glad I
> didn't use the word inside.
<smiling, silly look> Oh, yes. And I'm glad I didn't use the word
"intelligent".
>
> The objject
*That* was poor typing. Just so you know.;)
> is not to classify humans, but to instead classify how one
> is outside the normal human set they were born into. Seriously, the
> whole point is that for some reason weres are outside normal human
> parameters. Since the "Normal" set does include such wide variations one
> could easily conclude that none of you lackwits have gone beyond human
> in any way. However, if you want to start playing the lets define normal
> subset games that is fine, but it is way outside the point.
<curls tail around legs> Who, me? *You're* the one who brought "normal"
into this, Safari. I ask now, as I did when I was five, "What is normal?"
>
> (At
> > worst, it is intellectually dishonest.) Thus, I cannot point to
humanity as
> > a gudeline for this "wereness" you claim to know so much about, any more
> > than you.
> >
> It is quite unfortunate for me that all you want to do is play these
> poor games of dancing around the real point. That may work on your
> little groups outside here, and the poor pathetic losers who would
> believe anything as long as you told them they fit in, but this pathetic
> distraction was not only obvious, but illustrated the fact that I still
> need to find some way to dumb down the point for texans.
<look askance> *You*, O delightful ditz, are the one who's trying to tell
people they aren't werewolves. *I* reserve judgement. <smile> I'm just a
happy raconteur of a werewolf, having fun poking a few holes in a
Safari-born ego balloon. If people want to hang out here, anyone willing to
behave sociably is more than welcome, werewolf or no.
<cocks head> "Little groups"? Why, Safari, are you accusing *me* of being
an Alpha? *Me*, the source of more Norman Bates jokes than any other
werebeast? (I love my mother... ;) *Me*, the one who's still waiting for
you to e-mail the Mesquite police department and tell them what a big, bad
wolf I am, and how you're absolutely certain I robbed the gas station I
worked for in collusion with the people that got picked up spending the
money? *Me!?* ROTFL!:D And here I thought you had no sense of humour...
> That is poor
> > editing, and by extension a poor thinking process.
>
> Considering I don't edit, it is poor typing. Maybe you go over and over
> your words, but I rarely even look at what I type until someone responds
> to it. But, you win. i edit badly. So, to clarify, my "editing" skills
> and the straw man are all you have?
Funny, I didn't order any straw... must be yours.;) While your editing is
slightly painful, my primary pulse-pounding point is this:
You don't know what a werewolf is supposed to be, *either*. For all the
water you keep dumping on every werecreature that dares show its face within
your would-be demesnes, (and please don't tell me what you did with the
water before dumping it), you are still attempting to prove a negative
belief.
Now, proving a negative is impossible enough... you have to prove that
something is absolutely, positively, verifiably *not so*. Proving a belief
is almost as hard... belief is incredibly subjective. Trying to prove a
negative belief, though? <head shake> You deserve three rousing choruses
of "The Impossible Dream".
> >
> Well, if you can't win with a real point, claim to be sane. BTW plenty
> of idiots are sane. Are you going to have a point soon, or just keep
> telling us a shrink thought you were sane?
<cocks head> Such a lovely choice of words, O loudmouthed leonine. Would
you like me to send you my "shrink's" name and address, so you can verify
the sanity he "thought" I possessed? He *pronounced* me sane, dear one, a
prognosis not lightly given in the mental health profession.
<smirk> As for idiots being sane, So-furious, that is a paradox. An idiot,
by the dictionary definition, is:
1.. A foolish or stupid person.
2.. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below
three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard
against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no
longer in use and is now considered offensive.
Sane, by contrast, means:
1.. Of sound mind; mentally healthy: "their protector, the strongest and
sanest of them all" (Pat Conroy).
2.. Having or showing sound judgment; reasonable.
Therefore, no idiot is sane. You really should reconsider going to that
psychiatrist... ;)
> Oh, and what would be my motivation to contribute to a cookbook designed
> to line your pockets with money?
>
<chuckling head shake> There it is again. The "Wanderer has an
eeeeeeeeevil plan for turning recipes into money! Don't give him any
recipes!" slam. I knew it wouldn't be long before you dug up its grave and
put it on exhibit again.:) Never mind that *I'm* the one who has to pay for
all those books if anything goes wrong... I should think you'd want that to
happen. Poor little Wanderer, spending all his money to pay off the
publisher because Mighty Safari and his Legion refused to buy copies.
Doesn't that send a thrill through your alleged heart?;)
Yours in anticipation of a recipe for TV dinners,
The plebeian-palated,
David
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
><curls tail around legs> Who, me? *You're* the one who brought "normal"
>into this, Safari. I ask now, as I did when I was five, "What is normal?"
Beliefs, actions et al that do not significantly differ from the
average of an arbitrarily selected group of people for comparative
purposes.
SONICIDE
> At any rate, the same logic could apply to behaving like an animal.
> Let's quantify for a minute (Since you want to define) how many
> intrinsically human actions you make throughout the day as compared with
> how many animal like things you do. I'll even give you things like
> growling, and drooling as wolfy things. I bet by the end of the count
> you do many more human things than lupine.
since when did lycanthropy have to fall into a percentage? So if your
behavior is animal-like 50% of the time your a were, but if it's only 20%
your not. Gee snarfy your still a raging idiot.
And I'd put it at, ohh, about 99 .9% of the time.
>
> Though I don't suppose it is really
> > something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
> > beliefs.
>
> Real christians (You are claiming to be a real werewolf aren't you) live
> every day by the rules in the bible, and live their lives under it's
> direction. How often do you live as a wolf would?
Well there was a point in my life where I pretty much did. I lived one
summer in the AZ forests outside the reservation. It also depends on the
wolf. If you consider the wolf that lives with me , you could say we live
the same most of the time. Altho sorry I don't know the exact percentage. He
eats cookies and I don't so....
>
> Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just accept
> > and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we
didn't
> > do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience,
we
> > just take their word for it. Kind of like taking the word of the FDA
that
> > certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
> > people.
>
> *Yawn* Nice political rant. OTOH there is still quantifiable evidence
> that fits the claims. How often during the day do you behave like an
> animal, and what was the difference between human and wolf again.
political? I change my previous coment on you to 100% idiot ratio.
WF
SONICIDE
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.horror.werewolves
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Wolf pack behaviours
>
>
> Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > <cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
>
> Hey, wondering is back :)
> >
> > Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
> > certain thing):
>
> If I had known a texan would be reading it I would have used much
> smaller words.
I didn't know could get any smaller
> >
> > In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different
from
> > human. (Paragraph 2)
>
> Seems pretty simple to me. Why do I get the feeling you could not grasp
> that fact?
see the part where he says he is sane
you admit to poor typing skills yet get totally pissed off cause no one can
ever understand wtf you are saying. This is a perfect example of our
country's educational crisis (yes saffy THAT was political)
> >
> > Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
>
> If you can't say it yourself, don't bother.
> >
> > http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
> >
> > After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
>
> Someday there might be a point to your ramblings.
see above..
> >
> > Yours with a wolfish grin,
>
> But not today.
>
> Well, at least you are consistant there chucky. Maybe you should stick
> to cookbooks.
and you to textbooks dopey. Oh and its spelled -consistent
WF
>
> Safari
The Demon Shiya
Wanderer wrote:
>
> "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3EDA68DD...@goingsomewhere.com...
> >
> > You are right. I don't have to use mom's internet connection to post.
>
> <smirk> Funny how you ignore Kamatu's earlier statement that this e-mail is
> registered in *my* name, eh, "Princess"? <bow>
Kamatu? Are you like halucinating, or does my newsserver suck? Seriously
chucky, I don't think Kamatu has posted since last year sometime. Are
you having imaginary flame wars where you are the smartie? That doesn't
seem very sane, but not being a profesional shrink I could be wrong.
All bought and paid for by
> yours truly, along with the computer. <cocks head> It's Mother's *phone*,
> of course, in Mother's *house*... was that what you were trying to insult me
> about? <blink> Seems silly to consider staying at home to help your poor,
> sick mother a *bad* thing... but, whatever floats your boat.
Turnabout is foreplay. Sorry it bothered you so.
>
> > You could have just told me to be more careful next time.
>
> <smiling nod> Noted.
>
> >
> > I hope that you get to a point soon.
>
> <mock horror> But, Safari, you *are* the point! You said so yourself!
>
I know, I just wanted you to admit it in no uncertain terms.
> > >
> > > <bows head> My apologies, O confrontational computer cat. Your precise
> > > words were: "Actually humans do seem to range through almost all ends
> of
> > > that spectrum". My apologies for the lack of punctuation, but I feel
> quotes
> > > should appear as written.
> >
> > So, you did see the word almost? Did you not understand it? Glad I
> > didn't use the word inside.
>
> <smiling, silly look> Oh, yes. And I'm glad I didn't use the word
> "intelligent".
>
I know, it's those durn words.
> >
> > The objject
>
> *That* was poor typing. Just so you know.;)
Yes, it was. It probably won't get much better.
>
> > is not to classify humans, but to instead classify how one
> > is outside the normal human set they were born into. Seriously, the
> > whole point is that for some reason weres are outside normal human
> > parameters. Since the "Normal" set does include such wide variations one
> > could easily conclude that none of you lackwits have gone beyond human
> > in any way. However, if you want to start playing the lets define normal
> > subset games that is fine, but it is way outside the point.
>
> <curls tail around legs> Who, me? *You're* the one who brought "normal"
> into this, Safari. I ask now, as I did when I was five, "What is normal?"
Ok, that was interesting, you bring up the normal thing because the
point screamed over your head like a spy satelite, and then you blame me
for your attempt to change topic. I know I am at fault because I did not
speak down to your level of intelligence and spiritual development which
facilitated your need to try and get into the conversation on a level
you could comprehend, but still I don't think I would have dragged up
such a menial topic as normalcy. If you wish I could try to redirect you
back to what I was talking about.
>
> >
> > (At
> > > worst, it is intellectually dishonest.) Thus, I cannot point to
> humanity as
> > > a gudeline for this "wereness" you claim to know so much about, any more
> > > than you.
> > >
> > It is quite unfortunate for me that all you want to do is play these
> > poor games of dancing around the real point. That may work on your
> > little groups outside here, and the poor pathetic losers who would
> > believe anything as long as you told them they fit in, but this pathetic
> > distraction was not only obvious, but illustrated the fact that I still
> > need to find some way to dumb down the point for texans.
>
> <look askance> *You*, O delightful ditz, are the one who's trying to tell
> people they aren't werewolves.
Ok, so you understand that far.
>*I* reserve judgement.
Which is what most intelligent people who have a lack of understanding
do. It is normally a good idea when you can't determine the reality of
the situation.
<smile> I'm just a
> happy raconteur of a werewolf, having fun poking a few holes in a
> Safari-born ego balloon. If people want to hang out here, anyone willing to
> behave sociably is more than welcome, werewolf or no.
Are you saying I am unwelcome? Thanks for letting me know. All these
years I thought everyone liked me. So, I take it you disaprove of my
sentiment. Which would imply that you do not reserve judgement. It would
seem to imply that you seem to make a judgement that what these people
say is true. Which would mean, if I am right, that you are a liar. Ahh
hell, we already knew that about you chucky, and that you are sneaky and
underhanded also.
>
> <cocks head> "Little groups"? Why, Safari, are you accusing *me* of being
> an Alpha?
Actually, I am accusing you of having friends. Let me know if I am
mistaken. Actually, let me know in 2 weeks. I leave for vacation
tomorrow.
> *Me*, the source of more Norman Bates jokes than any other
> werebeast?
How exciting.
>(I love my mother... ;)
Your sexual habits are none of my concern.
>*Me*, the one who's still waiting for
> you to e-mail the Mesquite police department and tell them what a big, bad
> wolf I am, and how you're absolutely certain I robbed the gas station I
> worked for in collusion with the people that got picked up spending the
> money? *Me!?* ROTFL!:D And here I thought you had no sense of humour...
Did you tell your shrink about your persecution complex?
>
> > That is poor
> > > editing, and by extension a poor thinking process.
> >
> > Considering I don't edit, it is poor typing. Maybe you go over and over
> > your words, but I rarely even look at what I type until someone responds
> > to it. But, you win. i edit badly. So, to clarify, my "editing" skills
> > and the straw man are all you have?
>
> Funny, I didn't order any straw... must be yours.;) While your editing is
> slightly painful, my primary pulse-pounding point is this:
I hope this actually has to do with something that has to do with the
original point.
>
> You don't know what a werewolf is supposed to be, *either*.
I don't need to know what a werewolf is to support my argument. I know
my point is blatantly
simple, but you could at least try to grasp it. At any rate, I know
exactly what a werewolf is, and why it occurs, however it actually does
nothing for the conversation to actually define it as the discussion is
about the flawed conclusion that someone who is born, has been raised,
and has always lived as a human is somehow a wolf in reality even though
they maintain traits that always fall into the human set of
characteristics. Hell, the two hairy fuckers on ripleys were more
werewolf than people around here, and they don't seem to be very lupine
either.
For all the
> water you keep dumping on every werecreature that dares show its face within
> your would-be demesnes, (and please don't tell me what you did with the
> water before dumping it), you are still attempting to prove a negative
> belief.
I think it is definite you have made a judgement (While claiming not
to). However, your belief that everyone is telling the truth aside, I am
not so easily takeen in by blatant falsehoods (Lies for you texas folk).
I am willing to admit that some may not be aware they are lying, and may
have a true beleif in their delusion. However, I think most have a
pretty good idea they are, and that is what truly is offensive about me.
In the end, the points that I am talking about are steps on the journey
I took a long time ago. This point is basically a point of ego on behalf
of the ignorant masses. It is fun to take shots at it, but I doubt much
will ever come of what I say here. It is just fun to play with the
monkeys when I am trying not to think.
>
> Now, proving a negative is impossible enough...
Why am I proving a negative? I am stating a fact. You are human. You fit
within human parameters, and there is no reason to assume anything more.
You are the ones claiming you are not human. We haven't even gotten to
the wolf part yet. I am not even waiting on proof. I am just waiting on
an explanation of how you fall outside human parameters. So far
everything I have heard is something that is within the human set of
characteristics. Yes, that is how pathetic you guys actually are. We
aren't even at the hard part yet. You can't even explain how you are not
what you look, feel, and presently are, yet you feel your claims should
be taken at face value without question. Now, given that you were
deceptive in this post when you claimed you wait to pass judgement (Yet
really are passing positive judgement) I have to wonder how I can
believe you when you can't even give me one little way you are different
from humans.
However, that was an interesting attempt to try and put yourself on the
positive side there chucky :) You forget, I am not as easily confused as
your friends (Sorry for assuming you have friends again.)
you have to prove that
> something is absolutely, positively, verifiably *not so*. Proving a belief
> is almost as hard... belief is incredibly subjective. Trying to prove a
> negative belief, though? <head shake> You deserve three rousing choruses
> of "The Impossible Dream".
It was a good try chuck.
>
> > >
> > Well, if you can't win with a real point, claim to be sane. BTW plenty
> > of idiots are sane. Are you going to have a point soon, or just keep
> > telling us a shrink thought you were sane?
>
> <cocks head> Such a lovely choice of words, O loudmouthed leonine. Would
> you like me to send you my "shrink's" name and address, so you can verify
> the sanity he "thought" I possessed? He *pronounced* me sane, dear one, a
> prognosis not lightly given in the mental health profession.
I wasn't arguing with his diagnosis, but you may want to tell him about
this persecution thing you are perceiving. Sane or not, you are still an
idiot.
>
> <smirk> As for idiots being sane, So-furious, that is a paradox. An idiot,
> by the dictionary definition, is:
>
> 1.. A foolish or stupid person.
Hmmm, yup bingo, you got it. Was your picture by this entry, or just
something that said see AHWW?
> 2.. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below
> three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard
> against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no
> longer in use and is now considered offensive.
> Sane, by contrast, means:
>
> 1.. Of sound mind; mentally healthy: "their protector, the strongest and
> sanest of them all" (Pat Conroy).
> 2.. Having or showing sound judgment; reasonable.
Ok, is this argument that I am wrong and you aren't an idiot, or are you
trying to prove me right?
>
> Therefore, no idiot is sane. You really should reconsider going to that
> psychiatrist... ;)
I'll consider my point that you are an idiot no longer in contention.
Thank you.
>
> > Oh, and what would be my motivation to contribute to a cookbook designed
> > to line your pockets with money?
> >
>
> <chuckling head shake> There it is again.
It's the truth, squash it! I could see where it would be a bothersom
thing for you.
The "Wanderer has an
> eeeeeeeeevil plan for turning recipes into money!
One such as you should not associate themselves with evil.
Don't give him any
> recipes!" slam.
Seems a lot of others have come to the same conclusion.
I knew it wouldn't be long before you dug up its grave and
> put it on exhibit again.:)
You asked.
Never mind that *I'm* the one who has to pay for
> all those books if anything goes wrong...
I didn't say it was a good plan.
I should think you'd want that to
> happen.
Why do you think I fight so hard against it :) Not all of us are as
truly clueless as yourself. Evil does not always show it's true
intentions chucky :) Truly chucky, I know you are truly your biggest
mystery, but others of us find we know where we stand so it becomes far
easier to manipulate the outcome. Of course, I do have to admit, even
with my fame and reputation you have still managed to fuck up collecting
something that is free, and that anyone could cut and paste.
I don't know what to say the monkeys wont do.
Poor little Wanderer, spending all his money to pay off the
> publisher because Mighty Safari and his Legion refused to buy copies.
It took how long for that one to sink in. Something out there must be
watching out for you.
> Doesn't that send a thrill through your alleged heart?;)
It did about a year ago. Now it is just a big failure you seem to enjoy
flaunting in my face.
>
> Yours in anticipation of a recipe for TV dinners,
It would fit my current employer :)
Oh well, it is unfortunate you have nothing more to offer. time always
seems to flow very slowly the last few hours before vacation begins. I
think I will be off to find summer now, and drags it's pathetically lazy
ass up to NY. At any rate, see you in a couple of sundays.
The Demon Shiya
SONICIDE wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.horror.werewolves
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Wolf pack behaviours
>
> >
> >
> > Wanderer wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > <cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
> >
> > Hey, wondering is back :)
> > >
> > > Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
> > > certain thing):
> >
> > If I had known a texan would be reading it I would have used much
> > smaller words.
>
> I didn't know could get any smaller
ummm, sure.
>
> > >
> > > In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different
> from
> > > human. (Paragraph 2)
> >
> > Seems pretty simple to me. Why do I get the feeling you could not grasp
> > that fact?
>
> see the part where he says he is sane
>
Wow, this is horribly pointless. Ok, I'll bite how does wanderer being
sane prove he is not within human parameters? I would think that sanity
is something a couple of people posess.
pissed off? Where did that come from? You truly do overestimate your
importance in this world.
This is a perfect example of our
> country's educational crisis (yes saffy THAT was political)
Well, at least you aren't whining about how the AMA gave you lymes.
>
> > >
> > > Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
> >
> > If you can't say it yourself, don't bother.
> > >
> > > http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
> > >
> > > After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
> >
> > Someday there might be a point to your ramblings.
>
> see above..
>
Well, this is a horrible dissapointment.
> > >
> > > Yours with a wolfish grin,
> >
> > But not today.
> >
> > Well, at least you are consistant there chucky. Maybe you should stick
> > to cookbooks.
>
> and you to textbooks dopey. Oh and its spelled -consistent
I guess you told me. Did you want to say something regarding my
statements, or just about how they were spelled wrong? I tell you what,
since the spelling bugs you that much, feel free to spell check for me.
Thanks a bunch, that should save me some time (Well not really since I
don't spell check anyway).
OK, 2 hours left before vacation, and somebody else needs to post so I
can finish passing the time.
Safari
Diortem
Thats actually kinda scary when you think about it.
Diortem
Totentanz
"SONICIDE" <a...@sonicide.com> wrote in message
news:bbflv...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>
> > At any rate, the same logic could apply to behaving like an animal.
> > Let's quantify for a minute (Since you want to define) how many
> > intrinsically human actions you make throughout the day as compared with
> > how many animal like things you do. I'll even give you things like
> > growling, and drooling as wolfy things. I bet by the end of the count
> > you do many more human things than lupine.
>
> since when did lycanthropy have to fall into a percentage? So if your
> behavior is animal-like 50% of the time your a were, but if it's only 20%
> your not. Gee snarfy your still a raging idiot.
> And I'd put it at, ohh, about 99 .9% of the time.
Well technically all of us exhibit "animal-like" behavoir at all times,
considering that we have animal brains in our animal bodies that give us our
animal drives.
Diortem
> Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EDA68DD...@goingsomewhere.com...
> The "Wanderer has an
> > eeeeeeeeevil plan for turning recipes into money!
>
> One such as you should not associate themselves with evil.
>
> Don't give him any
> > recipes!" slam.
>
> Seems a lot of others have come to the same conclusion.
>
> I knew it wouldn't be long before you dug up its grave and
> > put it on exhibit again.:)
>
> You asked.
>
> Never mind that *I'm* the one who has to pay for
> > all those books if anything goes wrong...
>
> I didn't say it was a good plan.
>
> I should think you'd want that to
> > happen.
>
> Why do you think I fight so hard against it :) Not all of us are as
> truly clueless as yourself. Evil does not always show it's true
> intentions chucky :) Truly chucky, I know you are truly your biggest
> mystery, but others of us find we know where we stand so it becomes far
> easier to manipulate the outcome. Of course, I do have to admit, even
> with my fame and reputation you have still managed to fuck up collecting
> something that is free, and that anyone could cut and paste.
Excuse me, but... how is gathering recipies evil? I doubt a frying pan
can be used to summon something or cause a curse.... though I would
laugh to see a recipie for a curse like that.
Diortem, standing beside himself in awe at how cooking has become a
black art all of a sudden.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Its the easiest thing to 'prove' you are a werewolf, you just don't
: understand what a werewolf is , that being a human that views themselves as
: in someway having a wolflike nature or spirit and/or behaving in an animal
: like manner (see your local dictionary).
You mean like this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=werewolf
like this:
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au:8008/anonymousFFC13912352+2/-/macshowrecord/1/1
or like this:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89980&dict=CALD
Three randomly chosen dictionaries, none of which contain the meaning you
give to the word. Maybe you know one that does?
Believing that you have a wolf spirit inside you does not make you a
"werewolf" any more than believing that you have a banana spirit inside
you makes you a banana. It makes you a human who happens to believe that
you have a wolf spirit inside him/her.
: Though I don't suppose it is really
: something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
: beliefs. Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just accept
: and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we didn't
: do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience, we
: just take their word for it.
Bad analogy. We know that before any scientific finding is taken
seriously, it has been been held up to scrutiny and criticism and has
passed. We are not taking the word of the person who makes the claim at
face value (unless we're writing for a tabloid) but taking the word of the
whole system.
: Kind of like taking the word of the FDA that
: certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
: people.
No drug is ever "proven" safe. All that can ever be shown is that over a
particular group of test subjects, no ill effects have been found. Based
on that, authorities can choose to accept that it's likely that *most*
people can use the drug *mostly* safely *most* of the time. I'd be
surprised to learn of a single drug that has not caused adverse reactions
in someone, somewhere, sometime.
And what happens in that tiny number of cases where serious harmful
effects not uncovered in the original studies present themselves? The drug
is re-evaluated in the light of the new data. Authorities use that
information to re-evaluate how (and if) the drug is to be used.
When people's beliefs that they are werewolves can stand up to similar
scrutiny, perhaps their ideas might win some acceptance.
: If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
: into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
: separate things.
: Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being anything
: related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
: extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
False comparison. As far as I can see, Hollywood's idea of a "werewolf"
seems pretty spot-on to what the word actually means.
I could say that a telephone is a small, round, cheesy fruit and that
expecting telephones to look anything like they do in the movies is
missing the point... but then I'd just be redefining the word for my own
purposes, wouldn't I?
: But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
: always has been.
Geez I've missed this place.
SONICIDE
>
> Well technically all of us exhibit "animal-like" behavior at all times,
> considering that we have animal brains in our animal bodies that give us
our
> animal drives.
very true, especially where communication is concerned, every one uses
'wordless' sounds and gestures to communicate how they feel, the way animals
do. We are animals after all. we are just very advanced in the areas of
tools and language.
WF
SONICIDE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruediger LANDMANN" <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.horror.werewolves
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: Wolf pack behaviours
> SONICIDE <a...@sonicide.com> wrote:
> : Its the easiest thing to 'prove' you are a werewolf, you just don't
> : understand what a werewolf is , that being a human that views themselves
as
> : in someway having a wolflike nature or spirit and/or behaving in an
animal
> : like manner (see your local dictionary).
>
> You mean like this:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=werewolf
>
> like this:
>
>
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au:8008/anonymousFFC13912352+2/-/macshowr
ecord/1/1
>
> or like this:
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89980&dict=CALD
>
> Three randomly chosen dictionaries, none of which contain the meaning you
> give to the word. Maybe you know one that does?
my mistake then, I guess I assumed that 'lycanthopy' and 'werewolf' were
termed the same.
The proper term to use is 'lycanthrope'. And the term 'werewolf' used to
describe the mythical/fantasy version. I guess most people , including
myself, just find 'werewolf' or 'were' a lot easier to term to use.
>
> Believing that you have a wolf spirit inside you does not make you a
> "werewolf" any more than believing that you have a banana spirit inside
> you makes you a banana. It makes you a human who happens to believe that
> you have a wolf spirit inside him/her.
Bad analogy sweetie
no believing you have a wolf spirit doesn't make you a real wolf, duh I said
that already.
also if you are a 'werewolf' in that a person that actually changes into the
form of a wolf you are still NOT a real wolf. .
>
> : Though I don't suppose it is really
> : something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
> : beliefs. Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just
accept
> : and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we
didn't
> : do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience,
we
> : just take their word for it.
>
> Bad analogy. We know that before any scientific finding is taken
> seriously, it has been been held up to scrutiny and criticism and has
> passed. We are not taking the word of the person who makes the claim at
> face value (unless we're writing for a tabloid) but taking the word of the
> whole system.
And how many numerous times has what has been accepted as scientific fact
been eventually proven wrong? History is filled with multitudes of examples.
Just because the entire world agrees on something and have explanations as
to why it is so ,doesn't make it reality.
Or have you forgotten that not to long ago in human history people used to
believe the sun and planets revolved around the earth oh yee of closed mind?
>
> : Kind of like taking the word of the FDA that
> : certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
> : people.
>
> No drug is ever "proven" safe. All that can ever be shown is that over a
> particular group of test subjects, no ill effects have been found. Based
> on that, authorities can choose to accept that it's likely that *most*
> people can use the drug *mostly* safely *most* of the time. I'd be
> surprised to learn of a single drug that has not caused adverse reactions
> in someone, somewhere, sometime.
>
> And what happens in that tiny number of cases where serious harmful
> effects not uncovered in the original studies present themselves? The drug
> is re-evaluated in the light of the new data. Authorities use that
> information to re-evaluate how (and if) the drug is to be used.
>
> When people's beliefs that they are werewolves can stand up to similar
> scrutiny, perhaps their ideas might win some acceptance.
and someday perhaps hey will, but like you are saying there would have to be
big elaborate studies done and werewolves oh pardon 'Lycanthropes' are still
a very small minority and aren't taken seriously anyway obviously.
>
> : If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
> : into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
> : separate things.
> : Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being
anything
> : related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
> : extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
>
> False comparison. As far as I can see, Hollywood's idea of a "werewolf"
> seems pretty spot-on to what the word actually means.
lol really? even in the dictionary it does say WOLF doesn't it? Hollywood
uses big scary monsters rather than wolves in most cases.
>
> I could say that a telephone is a small, round, cheesy fruit and that
> expecting telephones to look anything like they do in the movies is
> missing the point... but then I'd just be redefining the word for my own
> purposes, wouldn't I?
Well most cultures do this. Does the term a computer 'bug' have anything to
do with a really bug other than the origin of the term? Is your computer
mouse anything like a real mouse?
I could call you an asshole but would you smell like one? (maybe that's not
a good example cause you might...)
>
> : But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
> : always has been.
>
> Geez I've missed this place.
really? how sad, don't you think it's time you found a better hobby?
WF
SONICIDE
"The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com> wrote in message
news:3EDC009C...@goingsomewhere.com...
Ruediger LANDMANN
: my mistake then, I guess I assumed that 'lycanthopy' and 'werewolf' were
: termed the same.
Ahhh. OK "lyncanthrope":
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lycanthropy
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au:8008/anonymousFFC74022277+2/-/macshowrecord/1/2
Well, now you've got two choices, one of which is synonymous with
"werewolf", which you claim that you're not.
The other choice is a mental illness where a person believes that they are
a wolf or have the characteristics of a wolf (or other beast). Is this
what you're claiming? If so, what characteristics of a wolf (or other
beast) do you believe that you have?
: The proper term to use is 'lycanthrope'. And the term 'werewolf' used to
: describe the mythical/fantasy version. I guess most people , including
: myself, just find 'werewolf' or 'were' a lot easier to term to use.
:> Believing that you have a wolf spirit inside you does not make you a
:> "werewolf" any more than believing that you have a banana spirit inside
:> you makes you a banana. It makes you a human who happens to believe that
:> you have a wolf spirit inside him/her.
: Bad analogy sweetie
Not at all. I could have said "werebanana" but decided that that was just
plain silly, even for this group. So let's try a few more combinations to
see whether a kl00 (tm) sinks in.
* Believing that you are inhabited by the spirit of a banana does not
make you a banana.
* Believing that you are inhabited by the spirit of a banana does not
make you a telephone.
* Believing that you are inhabited by the spirit of a banana does not
make you a werebanana
* Believing that you are inhabited by the spirit of a banana does not
make you a werewolf
All of these things just make you a human being with a delusion. Some
particular delusions are even given names...
: no believing you have a wolf spirit doesn't make you a real wolf, duh I said
: that already.
: also if you are a 'werewolf' in that a person that actually changes into the
: form of a wolf you are still NOT a real wolf. .
Aren't you? As I recall, while the person is transformed, they *are*
(magically) the animal, to the point where they behave exactly like the
animal and later, if and when returned to human form, they typically have
no recollection of their time as the animal. But this is a moot point
isn't it, since we agree that such things do not and cannot happen
(despite the claims of some sorry denizens of this group).
: And how many numerous times has what has been accepted as scientific fact
: been eventually proven wrong? History is filled with multitudes of examples.
: Just because the entire world agrees on something and have explanations as
: to why it is so ,doesn't make it reality.
Indeed. That's the beauty of science - even its most deeply-held premises
are open to challenge and correction. Usually, such correction takes the
form of demonstrating that something that was held to be generally true
(such as the conservation of mass, say) turn out to be true only under a
special set of conditions (mass is conserved, but only in chemical
reactions, not nuclear reactions, and even then the mass defect is
consistently predictable).
And of course, you will find that the vast majority of ideas that find
widespread scientific acceptance are not "eventually proven wrong".
: Or have you forgotten that not to long ago in human history people used to
: believe the sun and planets revolved around the earth oh yee of closed mind?
Yes, but that was not a scientific observation, was it? When science was
finally applied to understanding the apparent movements of the planets
in the sky, the notion was readily demonstrated as silly.
My mind is very open. But I like facts to be backed up with some kind of
evidence. What evidence do you have that you are inhabited by the spirit
of a wolf? For that matter, what evidence do you have that there's any
such thing as the spirit of a wolf?
: and someday perhaps hey will, but like you are saying there would have to be
: big elaborate studies done and werewolves oh pardon 'Lycanthropes' are still
: a very small minority and aren't taken seriously anyway obviously.
How can they be, in the complete absence of any evidence to make the
claims look like anything other than the product of pure fantasy at best,
or mental illness at worst?
:> : If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
:> : into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
:> : separate things.
:> : Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being
: anything
:> : related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
:> : extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
:>
:> False comparison. As far as I can see, Hollywood's idea of a "werewolf"
:> seems pretty spot-on to what the word actually means.
: lol really? even in the dictionary it does say WOLF doesn't it? Hollywood
: uses big scary monsters rather than wolves in most cases.
Yes, point taken. The Hollywood werewolf is more generally portrayed as
being more of a wolf-man than a wolf per se. But the common ground they
consistently share is that of a physical change in form, not just some
loon who goes around claiming to be inhabited by the spirits of one or
more animals (would this constitute an infestation?)
: Well most cultures do this. Does the term a computer 'bug' have anything to
: do with a really bug other than the origin of the term? Is your computer
: mouse anything like a real mouse?
: I could call you an asshole but would you smell like one? (maybe that's not
: a good example cause you might...)
A living language is a constantly evolving thing, which is why dictionary
definitions are treacherous things - they only ever describe how a word is
being used by most people, most of the time, as far as the compilers of
the dictionary know up to its point of publication. But you're the one
who's apparently fond of them, not me.
At the same time, if one is to go around claiming to be a certain person
or thing, and then when challenged on that claim have to retreat to a
position of saying that you're actually a toned-down, lame version of that
thing, you simply invite ridicule. The dialogue goes something like this:
Let's assume that Person #1 is a self-professed "werewolf", and Person #2
is an ordinary joe who assumes that the word has its most natural
vernacular meaning.
#1: You know what, I'm a werewolf!
#2: Wow, that's so cool! So you change into a wolf on nights there's a
full moon and stuff, right?
#1: Errr.... well... not exactly.
#2: Oh! So it's more like a wolf-man thing... you become some sort of
rabid, rampaging monster with preternatural senses and superhuman
strength?
#1: Not... quite...
#2: Ummm... so what is it exactly then?
#1: Well, I kind of think that I've got like, you know, a wolf spirit
living inside me.
#2: Oh.
Humourists sometimes do this deliberately for comic effect, such as Mel
Brooks' (IIRC) claim to being "world famous... in Poland". But I don't
think that's what you're trying to achieve, right?
Believe me, no-one would be more impressed than I would if someone could
demonstrate the ability to transform into a wolf (or wolf-man). But in the
absense of any evidence of this ability, I have to conclude that the claim
is nothing more than one of "gee werewolves are so cool - I wish I could
be a werewolf!"
: really? how sad, don't you think it's time you found a better hobby?
That's pretty rich coming from someone who, until today, was claiming to
be a werewolf and who now (I think) is claiming to have an undiagnosed
mental illness...
Onespecialcat
>
><cocks head> Neat little handle, Saf... where'd you steal it from?
>
>Let me see if I have your diatribe correctly translated (by no means a
>certain thing):
>
>In order to be considered a werewolf, you must prove you are different from
>human. (Paragraph 2)
>
>Humans exhibit all types of behaviors, preferences, and symptoms.
>(Paragraph 1)
>
>If we take this as a syllogism, then your position boils down to: Because
>nothing can be different from a human, there are only humans. (I think that
>needs rewording, don't you?)
>
>A similar moment comes at the end of paragraph 1:
>
>> Some of us, like me, have never claimed that certain similarities
>> exist between humans and many other animals. Actually I do believe that
>> due to these many similarities humans have learned the process of
>> personification.
>
>In one sentence, you dismiss similarities between humans and animals. In
>the next, you use the same similarities you just dismissed to justify the
>development of personification.
>
>Safari, allow me to give you a link I believe may be helpful to you:
>
>http://www.noah-health.org/english/illness/mentalhealth/mental.html
>
>After all... I've been pronounced sane.:)
So have I...lol.
And let me add my 20 cents worth...
You cannot prove what you feel, all you can do is describe it. If you are in
love, how do you prove that love?
By what you say and how you behave. It cannot be scientifically proven.
Spiritual things are not based
in the world of scientific fact. They can laugh at our beliefs if they wish,
but they are just shouting
into the wind because it achieves nothing. Those of us who are comfortable and
sure of ourselves don't
need to prove anything.
>
>Yours with a wolfish grin,
>
>The inconsistency-spotting,
>
>Wanderer
Hiya!
-Silver
"On the ragged edge of the world I'll roam,
And the home of the wolf will be my home."
-Robert Service.
Onespecialcat
>news:3EDA68DD...@goingsomewhere.com...
>>
>> You are right. I don't have to use mom's internet connection to post.
>
><smirk> Funny how you ignore Kamatu's earlier statement that this e-mail is
>registered in *my* name, eh, "Princess"? <bow> All bought and paid for by
>yours truly, along with the computer. <cocks head> It's Mother's *phone*,
>of course, in Mother's *house*... was that what you were trying to insult me
>about? <blink> Seems silly to consider staying at home to help your poor,
>sick mother a *bad* thing... but, whatever floats your boat.
I find the fact that you are looking after you Mum not only admirable, but
reinforcing how important family is to most weres.
I find Saffys comment funny though, because at present I am borrowing my
Mum's internet ...lol, so perhaps Saffy should be directing her lame comments
my way instead :)
<snip>
>
>Wanderer
-Silver
"On the ragged edge of the world I'll roam,
And the home of the wolf will be my home..."
-Robert Service.
Onespecialcat
Normal is not good. Normal is boring, normal is , you know...normal.
Normal scares me...lol. Greatness does not come from being normal,
nor is it ever a compliment in my eyes. Normal is mediocre, average,
unexciting,
montomous. To be normal is to be a sheep, no one whats to be normal, everyone
whats
to be different. No one ever got anywhere from trying to be a normal person.
>
>Diortem
Hiya Dio! :)
D. Saunders
great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
against him.
>By what you say and how you behave. It cannot be scientifically proven.
>Spiritual things are not based
>in the world of scientific fact. They can laugh at our beliefs if they wish,
>but they are just shouting
>into the wind because it achieves nothing. Those of us who are comfortable and
>sure of ourselves don't
>need to prove anything.
People who don't need to prove anything don't have anything worth
proveing.
It it obvious that claims to be a "were" are just that, worthless.
Indeed, It is the rejection of all that has been accomplished since
the enlightenment to name thyself such.
It betrays nothing, except credulity and lack of reasoning skills that
would shame a mad mullah.
Alas for the state of the world today.
Moonwolf
I used to feel that way about being "normal", though now I wouldn't
mind having aa few things "normal", like a normally functioning heart
and lungs...I guess age gives one some perspective.
Moonwolf
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Normal is not good. Normal is boring, normal is , you know...normal.
: Normal scares me...lol. Greatness does not come from being normal,
: nor is it ever a compliment in my eyes. Normal is mediocre, average,
: unexciting,
: montomous. To be normal is to be a sheep, no one whats to be normal, everyone
: whats
: to be different. No one ever got anywhere from trying to be a normal person.
What, as opposed to pretending to be a werewolf? Please point out the
"great" people who have suffered from this delusion.
No, I didn't think so.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: I used to feel that way about being "normal", though now I wouldn't
: mind having aa few things "normal", like a normally functioning heart
: and lungs...I guess age gives one some perspective.
: Moonwolf
But, apparently, not a clue...
Ruediger LANDMANN
: I find the fact that you are looking after you Mum not only admirable, but
: reinforcing how important family is to most weres.
Actually, family is important to most *people*. No need to single out your
sad co-delusionists here.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: So have I...lol.
: And let me add my 20 cents worth...
: You cannot prove wha
Bzzzt. You only get 2 cents, and that's being generous.
Diortem
Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
work.
Diortem
>
> ---
> http://www.wsws.org
Diortem
> >news:<3edb2514...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> >> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> shall never vanquished be until great
> >> Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
> >> him.
> >>
> >> ><curls tail around legs> Who, me? *You're* the one who brought "normal"
> >> >into this, Safari. I ask now, as I did when I was five, "What is normal?"
> >>
> >> Beliefs, actions et al that do not significantly differ from the
> >> average of an arbitrarily selected group of people for comparative
> >> purposes.
> >
> >Thats actually kinda scary when you think about it.
>
> Normal is not good. Normal is boring, normal is , you know...normal.
> Normal scares me...lol. Greatness does not come from being normal,
> nor is it ever a compliment in my eyes. Normal is mediocre, average,
> unexciting,
> montomous. To be normal is to be a sheep, no one whats to be normal, everyone
> whats
> to be different. No one ever got anywhere from trying to be a normal person.
>
> >
> >Diortem
> Hiya Dio! :)
Hello, Silver! Good to see you up and about again!
Diortem
For the moment, being a were is not the topic. Its just not being
normal in total. What it is saying, in truth, is that being normal
does not lead to much. And this would be correct. Ignore the
were-instances for a moment here and look at the bigger picture. How
many trully great individuals out there were merely normal?
Frankly, I agree with Silver, normalicy is not what should be wanted,
but to strive to be a cut above.... be it as a human or as a were...
it simply does not matter.
Diortem, stunned that you would be so dense as to promote being part
of the herd like that.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Ruediger LANDMANN <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> wrote in message news:<bcisqc$fo1$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
:> Onespecialcat <onespe...@aol.com> wrote:
:>
:> : Normal is not good. Normal is boring, normal is , you know...normal.
:> : Normal scares me...lol. Greatness does not come from being normal,
:> : nor is it ever a compliment in my eyes. Normal is mediocre, average,
:> : unexciting,
:> : montomous. To be normal is to be a sheep, no one whats to be normal, everyone
:> : whats
:> : to be different. No one ever got anywhere from trying to be a normal person.
:>
:> What, as opposed to pretending to be a werewolf? Please point out the
:> "great" people who have suffered from this delusion.
:>
:> No, I didn't think so.
: For the moment, being a were is not the topic. Its just not being
: normal in total. What it is saying, in truth, is that being normal
: does not lead to much. And this would be correct. Ignore the
: were-instances for a moment here and look at the bigger picture. How
: many trully great individuals out there were merely normal?
In the sense that "normal" is being used here... damn near all of them.
Whether you're talking Shakespeare, Newton, Michelangelo, or Bach, they
were all physiologically and psychologically within human norms. Nothing
about their bodies or minds would lead one to conclude otherwise. Their
works of greatness were not driven by being "inhabited" by wolf spirits,
aliens, or any other mythological creatures.
It's great to be a human being. Which makes me wonder why anyone would
fantasise that they were anything other, unless at some level they felt
that they had somehow "failed" as human beings.
: Frankly, I agree with Silver, normalicy is not what should be wanted,
: but to strive to be a cut above.... be it as a human or as a were...
: it simply does not matter.
: Diortem, stunned that you would be so dense as to promote being part
: of the herd like that.
Hear that wooshing sound? That was the point going right over your head.
Now pay attention.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
: thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
Probably not. But we can keep trying. Please don't expect anyone to just
believe you just on your say-so.
: Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
: will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
: ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
: work.
You've yet to demonstrate that there's any such thing as "things of the
spirit", let alone wolf spirits, let alone wolf spirits that somehow
inhabit human beings, let alone that said "inhabitation" changes the human
into something other than human. That's a lot of 'splaining to do...
Until you come up with something to back up your weird claims, please
don't expect anyone to take you seriously enough to stop heckling you.
SONICIDE
emotions.
I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
reduced response to pain. To really study it you have to have blood tests
done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc. I
think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
study.
I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
Whitefell
SONICIDE
"Moonwolf" <barbt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecfc068b.03061...@posting.google.com...
Hi, hanging in there I see :)
I feel this way sometimes and wish I could be 'normal' as far as my health
and be able to live the way 'normal' healthy people do. Mabee because I know
the difference and used to be very athletic. But I've become so used to my
illness that now being sick all the time is the norm so I've just accepted
it as that. And tho I cant say its been easy, the suffering I've gone
through has been hard on my body but good for the soul. It shown me things
and taught me things that are priceless. I have a whole appreciation for
life that I wouldn't have other wise. There are a lot of people who seem to
have good lives, health ,money, and they are just the most shallow ,petty
wretchedly miserably people, and you know I wouldn't trade places with them.
I don't mean to say I'd like to see you as ill as you are but ,just that
mabee you got to see the hard reality of living as a trade off in wisdom,
and when we think it isn't normal ,actually it is, as life is a struggle,
for all things and for most people. And were all frail and mortal and will
all someday die. Some of us live longer than others ,some of us are born
will incurable things and die young, some never make it to being born at
all. So what is normal?
I'd say you are special because you've had the strength to endure your
hardships.
Take care,
Whitefell
D. Saunders
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
>Actually there have been plenty of studies done on human AND animal
>emotions.
>I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
>relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
Simply haveing faith or rather belive that you will get better has the
same effect.
So would popping suger pills and being told that they are magic
medecine.
>show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
>with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
>just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
Yes it has. Lycanthropy is a form of madness, where people belive
themselves to be wolves IIRC.
This is in a screaming throwing things about madness, as opppose to
mere wishful thinking.
>definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
>reduced response to pain. To really study it you have to have blood tests
>done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc. I
>think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
>scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
>study.
Science is all about discovering new interesting things, even if they
are small.
That they don't need to bother with people who claim to be
werewolves...
>I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
>skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
The only people who scoff at science are those who claim to be
werewolves!
D. Saunders
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
>Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
>thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
>Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
>will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
>ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
>work.
Use occams razor....
Either 2000 years of science is wrong and werewolves really do exist,
or You're indulgeing in wishful thinking.
Hmmm.
Moonwolf
Hi, yes, still hanging in there<g>. I know what you mean about the
appreciation of life, though in an odd way, I'm less afraid of death,
as long as I have gotten my kids out of the nest and on their way.
Though there are still things I enjoy doing and am not in a hurry to
leave. One thing I learned this last episode, if I try to make myself
do things my heart and lungs won't allow me to do as once I did, I am
only going to hurt myself, rather than develop new stamina.
>
> I don't mean to say I'd like to see you as ill as you are but ,just that
> mabee you got to see the hard reality of living as a trade off in wisdom,
> and when we think it isn't normal ,actually it is, as life is a struggle,
> for all things and for most people. And were all frail and mortal and will
> all someday die. Some of us live longer than others ,some of us are born
> will incurable things and die young, some never make it to being born at
> all. So what is normal?
> I'd say you are special because you've had the strength to endure your
> hardships.
Back atc'ha...I do believe there is a reason my life is as it is, call
it karma or whatever...there is a balance in all areas of the
universe, I fully believe.
Moonwolf
>
>
> Take care,
> Whitefell
Bill Jillians
uq.edu.au>, we realised Ruediger LANDMANN <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> was
serious and so replied thus:
Oh dry up ....
I believe in wolfmen. I have seen shadows. Things that don't come out
in the day. There are lessons in history. Things I haven't experienced.
I'm speaking metaphorically U kna'
--
Bill Jillians (posing as Sam Sherrit to get an account).
Vienna, Austria 1st January 1913.
Bum: Mister Hitler ! You can't light fires here, young man. Need I remind you
that you're just a lodger in this building ? I demand you put this out
immediately or I'll be forced to call on a Police Constable. What are you
burning anyway?
Hitler: Yesterday.
Jenny Sparks: The Secret History of The Authority.
IF YOU ALLOW ME TO HAVE THE LAST WORD ... BETTER FACE IT ... I'VE **WON**
Diortem
> "SONICIDE" <a...@sonicide.com> shall never vanquished be until great
> Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
> him.
>
> >Actually there have been plenty of studies done on human AND animal
> >emotions.
> >I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
> >relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
>
> Simply haveing faith or rather belive that you will get better has the
> same effect.
> So would popping suger pills and being told that they are magic
> medecine.
Yet some people DO get better on this in studies (a small amount I
will admi, but...). If you concider this, then you have to admit
something..... for all your babble against faith (and I have heard one
HELL of alot), it DOES have an effect.... whether you care to throw it
out as "beyond science so false" or not.
>
> >show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
> >with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
> >just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
>
> Yes it has. Lycanthropy is a form of madness, where people belive
> themselves to be wolves IIRC.
> This is in a screaming throwing things about madness, as opppose to
> mere wishful thinking.
I will have to look that up, but you are right here in one regard...
the choice term is probably not the best one for how people here
describe themselves.
>
> >definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
> >reduced response to pain. To really study it you have to have blood tests
> >done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc. I
> >think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
> >scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
> >study.
>
> Science is all about discovering new interesting things, even if they
> are small.
> That they don't need to bother with people who claim to be
> werewolves...
has everything to do with that minority issue. Fact is they have much
more common things to look into. Your idea of it being a "small" issue
isnt what was being reffurred to at all... therefore, it is
irrelevant.
>
> >I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
> >skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
>
> The only people who scoff at science are those who claim to be
> werewolves!
*smirks* Why Suanders, Im hurt. I thought you knew by now I myself
rather adore science and want to see more of it. Though I suppose I
can also throw "wolf" out of the equation.
But thats besides the point. Its quite possible to have faith in
something and science at the same time. In fact its quite simple to
do. You look at these facts, and the beliefs, and melt the beliefs
around what has been proven. Hense why no one goes around believing
some deamon lives just beyond the edge of a flat earth to eat them....
such an idea cant be because the earth was proven round. However, not
much has been proven or disproven in the line of spirituality with
such a finality behind it. You cant assume such a statement because of
that little fact.
Diortem, stepping up for a peaceful unity of science and faith.
Diortem
> Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
> : thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
>
> Probably not. But we can keep trying. Please don't expect anyone to just
> believe you just on your say-so.
I honestly dont expect you to. I would be insane to think I could. And
your right... we can keep trying, and that drive to know will always
keep us trying.... its part of the cycle (and a damn glorious one at
that).
>
> : Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
> : will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
> : ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
> : work.
>
> You've yet to demonstrate that there's any such thing as "things of the
> spirit", let alone wolf spirits, let alone wolf spirits that somehow
> inhabit human beings, let alone that said "inhabitation" changes the human
> into something other than human. That's a lot of 'splaining to do...
I dont intend to explain it.... nor could I really. If you want my
opinion about things of the spirit... I just look at the fact that we
are concious and self-aware. That to me says something is driving us.
You can accept that if you want, or reject it. That is your call, and
I cant change your oppinion any more than you can mine.
The rest, I wasnt even going into here, and I dont intend to just now.
Im not going to claim to be an expert where Im not.
> Until you come up with something to back up your weird claims, please
> don't expect anyone to take you seriously enough to stop heckling you.
And why is it so wierd to believe there is more then the physical
world?
Diortem, ready to listen to your answer.
Diortem
Your talking about physical only.... but on that level, I agree.
However, I wont close my eyes to the possibility of more to a person
then just the hardware. *smirks*
To use the computer as an anlaogy, there has to be a program somewhere
running it.... and below that, an OS trasnlating between the two....
yes, the application software would be knowledge, but how much do we
really know about our OS(s)? It is quite possible that some are not
configured the same as others... or even perhaps, slightly differnt
versions... fact is we dont have a way to find out.
> Hmmm.
Hmmm indeed. This could be interesting. Assuming of course, you allow
yourself to look at the world with the openness to accept there is
more then we see going on.
Diortem
Diortem
> In alt.horror.werewolves Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
> : Ruediger LANDMANN <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> wrote in message news:<bcisqc$fo1$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> :> Onespecialcat <onespe...@aol.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Normal is not good. Normal is boring, normal is , you know...normal.
> :> : Normal scares me...lol. Greatness does not come from being normal,
> :> : nor is it ever a compliment in my eyes. Normal is mediocre, average,
> :> : unexciting,
> :> : montomous. To be normal is to be a sheep, no one whats to be normal, everyone
> :> : whats
> :> : to be different. No one ever got anywhere from trying to be a normal person.
> :>
> :> What, as opposed to pretending to be a werewolf? Please point out the
> :> "great" people who have suffered from this delusion.
> :>
> :> No, I didn't think so.
>
> : For the moment, being a were is not the topic. Its just not being
> : normal in total. What it is saying, in truth, is that being normal
> : does not lead to much. And this would be correct. Ignore the
> : were-instances for a moment here and look at the bigger picture. How
> : many trully great individuals out there were merely normal?
>
> In the sense that "normal" is being used here... damn near all of them.
Really?
> Whether you're talking Shakespeare, Newton, Michelangelo, or Bach, they
> were all physiologically and psychologically within human norms. Nothing
> about their bodies or minds would lead one to conclude otherwise. Their
> works of greatness were not driven by being "inhabited" by wolf spirits,
> aliens, or any other mythological creatures.
Thats odd.... You see, I didnt read ANY of that in there. Are you
making an assumption to what someone else said? We were not talking
about weres at all.... it was simply normalicy.
>
> It's great to be a human being.
Good for you! Now that we are done patting ourselves on the back....
> Which makes me wonder why anyone would fantasise that they were anything
> other, unless at some level they felt that they had somehow "failed" as human
> beings.
>
Funny comment. Believe what you will, but your still skewing the point
with something from left field in this topic. May I ask what your
obsession with it comes from?
> : Frankly, I agree with Silver, normalicy is not what should be wanted,
> : but to strive to be a cut above.... be it as a human or as a were...
> : it simply does not matter.
>
> : Diortem, stunned that you would be so dense as to promote being part
> : of the herd like that.
>
> Hear that wooshing sound? That was the point going right over your head.
Your point maybe, but not hers.
>
> Now pay attention.
Take your own advice and read more carefully before you shoot your
mouth off.
Diortem
Ruediger LANDMANN
: very true, especially where communication is concerned, every one uses
: 'wordless' sounds and gestures to communicate how they feel, the way animals
: do. We are animals after all. we are just very advanced in the areas of
: tools and language.
We are truly L33+
Human beings are the masters of this world. We 0wnzor it.
All other species bow to *us*.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Actually there have been plenty of studies done on human AND animal
: emotions.
: I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
: relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
: show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
: with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
: just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
: definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
: reduced response to pain.
There's no such thing as "shifting". The increased strength and agility
and the reduced response to pain are simply the product of an overactive
imagination. Do you have even a *shred* of evidence to back up what you're
saying? Or are you just pulling all of this out of your arse?
: To really study it you have to have blood tests
: done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc.
That would come later, sure. But initially, all you'd have to do is *one*
of you demonstrate *one* occasion of performing *any* kind of physical or
sensory feat outside the human norm while "shifted". I don't think that's
a big ask.
Again, that's just *one* of you providing *one* example.
: I
: think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
: scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
: study.
Especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the phenomenon
is real. Scientists *observe* phenomena first, before attempting to
explain it. You can't explain what simply isn't there.
: I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
: skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
Not I. In fact, I'd be the first to champion your cause. Come on, "weres"
- I *want* be believe you.
The Demon Shiya
Bill Jillians wrote:
>
> As we laughed at the simple ideas expressed in <bcjp38$mqi$1...@bunyip.cc.
> uq.edu.au>, we realised Ruediger LANDMANN <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> was
> serious and so replied thus:
> >Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >: Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
> >: thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
> >
> >Probably not. But we can keep trying. Please don't expect anyone to just
> >believe you just on your say-so.
> >
> >: Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
> >: will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
> >: ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
> >: work.
> >
> >You've yet to demonstrate that there's any such thing as "things of the
> >spirit", let alone wolf spirits, let alone wolf spirits that somehow
> >inhabit human beings, let alone that said "inhabitation" changes the human
> >into something other than human. That's a lot of 'splaining to do...
> >
> >Until you come up with something to back up your weird claims, please
> >don't expect anyone to take you seriously enough to stop heckling you.
>
> Oh dry up ....
Yes, how dare you believe your own eyes and experience when it is so
obvious that werewolves are all around you.
>
> I believe in wolfmen.
I believe some people should try self medication.
>I have seen shadows.
I have seen them too. I have always been taught that they were a product
of a physical object blocking the light. However, I now realize they are
part of the great wolfman conspiracy.
>Things that don't come out
> in the day.
I thought goths were into vampires?
>There are lessons in history.
Yes, we all know that Napoleon was a werewolf.
>Things I haven't experienced.
I haven't experienced the scortching heat of the surface of the sun so I
must be a werewolf.
>
> I'm speaking metaphorically U kna'
Utena? No No, one of them was a werecow, but there were no werewolves in
utena you momo.
Safari
The Demon Shiya
Ruediger LANDMANN wrote:
>
> SONICIDE <a...@sonicide.com> wrote:
> : Actually there have been plenty of studies done on human AND animal
> : emotions.
> : I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
> : relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
> : show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
> : with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
> : just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
> : definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
> : reduced response to pain.
>
> There's no such thing as "shifting". The increased strength and agility
> and the reduced response to pain are simply the product of an overactive
> imagination. Do you have even a *shred* of evidence to back up what you're
> saying? Or are you just pulling all of this out of your arse?
The odd part is that those physical changes would be somewhat easy to
actually test. Although one may have to find some way to avoid confusing
the results with the acuity and strength associated with a simple
adrenaline excretion that would be typical of a human under stress (Or
causing themselves stress for the sake of a natural high). I hope that
dios isn't trying to claim he is a werewolf because he gets an
adrenaline rush.
>
> : To really study it you have to have blood tests
> : done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc.
>
> That would come later, sure. But initially, all you'd have to do is *one*
> of you demonstrate *one* occasion of performing *any* kind of physical or
> sensory feat outside the human norm while "shifted". I don't think that's
> a big ask.
Well, it might involve someone around here making a human friend, or
having a good enough job to pay a test subject. It seems to me that
antisocial and unemployable seem to be defining characteristics of
werewolves.
>
> Again, that's just *one* of you providing *one* example.
Don't hold your breath.
>
> : I
> : think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
> : scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
> : study.
>
> Especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the phenomenon
> is real. Scientists *observe* phenomena first, before attempting to
> explain it. You can't explain what simply isn't there.
Well, actually I think the real problem is that the scientific community
has invested time into understanding it, and they concluded that it was
a form of delusion.
>
> : I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
> : skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
>
> Not I. In fact, I'd be the first to champion your cause. Come on, "weres"
> - I *want* be believe you.
Well, conclusive scientific studies are a far cry from one person
illustrating a "non-human" trait. Although, even a small start is
something more than has ever been done around here.
Safari
D. Saunders
until great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
against him.
>>Things I haven't experienced.
>
>I haven't experienced the scortching heat of the surface of the sun so I
>must be a werewolf.
I once got a sunburnt neck from staying out in the sun and not useing
suncream, I think i'm probably a vampire.
However my father was not a lawyer. so how could I be?
The Demon Shiya
Onespecialcat wrote:
> So have I...lol.
I am still wondering what sanity has to do with anything, but I guess
that is my silliness.
> And let me add my 20 cents worth...
You should throw in at least a quarter.
> You cannot prove what you feel, all you can do is describe it. If you are in
> love, how do you prove that love?
Well, putting aside the fact that the human idea of love I feel is
flawed and delusional also, feelings tend to have physical
manifestations. They also are a shared reality of human existance. What
is more likely, that the idea of being a wolf is something humans have
deluded themselves into being for long times due to psychological
factors, or that for no reason whatsoever you have been infused with the
spirit of the wolf?
> By what you say and how you behave. It cannot be scientifically proven.
Actually, the body has measurable reactions to emotional states.
> Spiritual things are not based
> in the world of scientific fact.
This is true. However, it would seem that many try to justify their
spiritual beliefs using physical proof. Hey, if you were to say "I
believe I have the spirit of a wolf, but a human body." That would at
least force someone into a philisophical argument. All too often people
say stupid things like "I know I am a wolf because I like dogs, or
because I can see in the dark, or my reaction times are quicker, or
because I can beat people up." You see, those are not spiritual
manifestations. Those are easily proveable physical manifestations.
Seriously, you could at least force the conversation into a
philisophical realm of spiritual discussion, but your own insecurity
drives you to try and justify your feelings with something more than
just feelings. You can blame the trolls all you want, but the fact
remains that if you had self confidence they would only be an easily
ignored PITA. Actually, you would probably have better things to do than
to come here and try to justify your feelings by playing let's make a
lie with people just as insecure as yourself.
Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
>They can laugh at our beliefs if they wish,
> but they are just shouting
> into the wind because it achieves nothing.
If by acheive you mean it entertains us for a minute or two, then you
would be wrong. If by acheive you mean it makes you need to justify your
feelings through more and more intricate and assinine methods, then you
would be wrong. If by acheive you mean get you to admit you are wrong
and lying to yourself, you would be right. That is a futile goal. That
would involve personal growth, and enough courage to face the world as
yourself, and we all know that will never happen.
Those of us who are comfortable and
> sure of ourselves don't
> need to prove anything.
I can agree with that. So can you explain why it bothers you so much
that someone doesn't believe in you?
Damn logic.
Safari
Diortem
<snipping for brevity>
> The odd part is that those physical changes would be somewhat easy to
> actually test. Although one may have to find some way to avoid confusing
> the results with the acuity and strength associated with a simple
> adrenaline excretion that would be typical of a human under stress (Or
> causing themselves stress for the sake of a natural high). I hope that
> dios isn't trying to claim he is a werewolf because he gets an
> adrenaline rush.
*smiles* Why, Safari! Long time no see! Glad to see you remember me!
But, I think you have it off-base like Snuh did. Im not claiming to be
a wolf. But I see you still have that soft spot for me.... how
cute.....
Diortem, warmed to the heart.
Totentanz
"Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote
> such an idea cant be because the earth was proven round.
Actually it isn't round. If it was round, it would still be flat, since
"round" is two dimensional. It is somewhat spherical.
However, not
> much has been proven or disproven in the line of spirituality with
> such a finality behind it. You cant assume such a statement because of
> that little fact.
>
Spirituality exists to explain the things that science cannot..
Diortem
> "Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> > such an idea cant be because the earth was proven round.
>
> Actually it isn't round. If it was round, it would still be flat, since
> "round" is two dimensional. It is somewhat spherical.
>
terminology.
> However, not
> > much has been proven or disproven in the line of spirituality with
> > such a finality behind it. You cant assume such a statement because of
> > that little fact.
> >
>
> Spirituality exists to explain the things that science cannot..
Exactly... but when your talking to someone who deals with science
only, you have to speak on their level. And Spirituality, unlike
proven science, IS up to alternate points of view. You can not have
final views on any side.
Diortem, knowing IM repeating myself, but letting it happen anyway.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Oh dry up ....
: I believe in wolfmen. I have seen shadows. Things that don't come out
: in the day. There are lessons in history. Things I haven't experienced.
Wooo! Scary!
: I'm speaking metaphorically U kna'
Such ideas have no place on alt.horror.werewolves. This is where *real*
werewolves gather, dontcha know?
Rat and Swan
>
> Its the easiest thing to 'prove' you are a werewolf, you just don't
> understand what a werewolf is , that being a human that views themselves as
> in someway having a wolflike nature or spirit and/or behaving in an animal
> like manner (see your local dictionary).
Respectful question: Would this be somewhat like the beliefs in
astrological influences? Such as "I am a Leo." which carries so much
*more* in the four words than the simple statement gives? The statement
*means* "I have the characteristics commonly associated with this sign,
I was born in the correct frame of time, I believe that this sign
affects my actions and that astrology is valid for me.", but is
condensed into "I am a Leo." because others who understand astrology
know automatically what the speaker is saying.
Am I close? Am I all wet? :) if I am correct, then the statement would
mean not "I have chosen to be a Leo" or "I believe my name is Leo." or
even "I am a lion" but instead "I believe that the framework of the sign
"Leo" fits me properly so I move within it."
Degrees of belief in astrology range from the skeptics tothe occasional
reader of a newspaper horoscope to those who let it guide their lives to
the ones who draw up charts and research planetary orbits and
geographical birth locales and times of day etc. IOW a continuum of
involvement. Would I be correct?
> Though I don't suppose it is really
> something you can prove anymore that someone can prove their religious
> beliefs. Of note, are a lot of things proven by science that we just accept
> and take for truth. We tend to believe scientific research ,though we didn't
> do it our selves and really have no first hand knowledge or experience, we
> just take their word for it. Kind of like taking the word of the FDA that
> certain drugs are proven safe only to find out later on they are hurting
> people.
Yep. I believe that George Washington existed, even if I never saw him
and couldn't *prove* it one way or another. After all... we have papers
etc supposedly written by him, but do we have any actual *hard evidence*
that those ivory dentures and Mount Vernon were *really* *his*? It could
all be an elaborate hoax. My money's on it being true, however. :)
> If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
> into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
> separate things.
> Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being anything
> related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
> extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
Good analogy.
> But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
> always has been.
>
> whitefell
Comments continue below.
> "David" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3ecf7bbe...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> shall never
> > vanquished be until great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves.
> > hill shall come against him.
> >
> > >According to your advice, I have checked up my internal conceptions with
> > >scientific evidence. It adds up, your claims do not.
> >
> > I'm sorry, But I don't know of ANY (reputable) scientist who would
> > belive that you realy are a werewolf.
I can't speak to that. Perhaps we are all solipsists with delusions of
commonality?
On Usenet we're all pixels.
> > I'm afraid you must emprically prove that you are a werewolf.
> > Otherwise, all that spews from your fingers and mouth is BULLSHIT.
> > HTH.
What is your investment in this? You give your time and effort to
refuting things. Why is it important to you? Live and let live.
BTW, I *love the sig! It is VERY true!
> > War is the terrorism of the rich
> > Terrorism is the war of the poor
Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.
Swan/Karaden
Life! Health! Strength!
Rat and Swan
> >
> >
> > > At any rate, the same logic could apply to behaving like an animal.
> > > Let's quantify for a minute (Since you want to define) how many
> > > intrinsically human actions you make throughout the day as compared with
> > > how many animal like things you do. I'll even give you things like
> > > growling, and drooling as wolfy things. I bet by the end of the count
> > > you do many more human things than lupine.
> >
> > since when did lycanthropy have to fall into a percentage? So if your
> > behavior is animal-like 50% of the time your a were, but if it's only 20%
> > your not. Gee snarfy your still a raging idiot.
> > And I'd put it at, ohh, about 99 .9% of the time.
>
> Well technically all of us exhibit "animal-like" behavoir at all times,
> considering that we have animal brains in our animal bodies that give us our
> animal drives.
Indeed. If he doesn't stop bringing me bills everyday, I may well give
in to my urge to bite the postman! :)
Swan/Karaden.
Rat and Swan
>
> onespe...@aol.com (Onespecialcat) shall never vanquished be until
> great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come
> against him.
>
> >but they are just shouting
> >sure of ourselves don't
> >need to prove anything.
>
> proveing.
Perhaps they speak from non-transferable confidence.
> It it obvious that claims to be a "were" are just that, worthless.
> Indeed, It is the rejection of all that has been accomplished since
> the enlightenment to name thyself such.
Classic "either/or" thinking. "I drink 7-Up, therefore I must reject
all things Pepsi!" or "I walk on foot, therefore I must reject all
things automobile." when the truth may be "I drink 7-Up and respect
others' rights to drink lemonade." or I go afoot but I respect others'
rights to use bicycles." Many choices, not just on/off, 1/2,
black/white or animal/human. There is on/idle/off
1/2/3/4/etc, red/orange/yellow/etc.
to be unable to grasp complexity is like a dog sniffing the end of a
pointed finger instead of what the finger is pointing *at*. Lack if
imagination is a sure sign of lack of intellectual capacity. Scientists
regularly state that the sign of intelligence in any animal species is
the presence of play and play behaviors. Paramecia do not play. Planaria
do not play. Higher forms do play and seem to possess the quality we
would call "imagination" or the ability to envision something other than
a stark literalism.
> It betrays nothing, except credulity and lack of reasoning skills that
> would shame a mad mullah.
The lack of imagination can *lead* to insanity. Deprive an organism of
dream-sleep and you drive it insane and eventually kill it.
> Alas for the state of the world today.
Upon that we can at last, agree. Alack and welladay, even. :)
Swan/Karaden
Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Remove all colors from my sight.
SONICIDE
>
>
> Onespecialcat wrote:
>
> > So have I...lol.
>
> I am still wondering what sanity has to do with anything, but I guess
> that is my silliness.
>
> > And let me add my 20 cents worth...
>
> You should throw in at least a quarter.
why need the money? sorry your johns don't pay more.
>
> > You cannot prove what you feel, all you can do is describe it. If you
are in
> > love, how do you prove that love?
>
> Well, putting aside the fact that the human idea of love I feel is
> flawed and delusional also, feelings tend to have physical
> manifestations. They also are a shared reality of human existance. What
> is more likely, that the idea of being a wolf is something humans have
> deluded themselves into being for long times due to psychological
> factors, or that for no reason whatsoever you have been infused with the
> spirit of the wolf?
the human idea of love is flawed and delusional? Which idea? so than the
animals view of love isn't and the humans is? or do you think the concept of
love is a total illusion and there is no such thing?
>
> > By what you say and how you behave. It cannot be scientifically proven.
>
> Actually, the body has measurable reactions to emotional states.
so you acknowledge that lycanthropy is measurable and provable.
>
> > Spiritual things are not based
> > in the world of scientific fact.
>
> This is true. However, it would seem that many try to justify their
> spiritual beliefs using physical proof. Hey, if you were to say "I
> believe I have the spirit of a wolf, but a human body." That would at
> least force someone into a philisophical argument. All too often people
> say stupid things like "I know I am a wolf because I like dogs, or
> because I can see in the dark, or my reaction times are quicker, or
> because I can beat people up." You see, those are not spiritual
> manifestations. Those are easily proveable physical manifestations.
so you acknowledge that there are easily provable physical manifestations
of lycanthropy.
> Seriously, you could at least force the conversation into a
> philisophical realm of spiritual discussion, but your own insecurity
> drives you to try and justify your feelings with something more than
> just feelings. You can blame the trolls all you want, but the fact
> remains that if you had self confidence they would only be an easily
> ignored PITA. Actually, you would probably have better things to do than
> to come here and try to justify your feelings by playing let's make a
> lie with people just as insecure as yourself.
>
> Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
Ok :) I don't most posters here are out to justify any feelings, just a
discussion of common beliefs and experiences. Just because you don't share
in them doesn't make them any less valid for the people that do. Sorry you
feel so left out.
>
> >They can laugh at our beliefs if they wish,
> > but they are just shouting
> > into the wind because it achieves nothing.
>
> If by acheive you mean it entertains us for a minute or two, then you
> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean it makes you need to justify your
> feelings through more and more intricate and assinine methods, then you
> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean get you to admit you are wrong
> and lying to yourself, you would be right. That is a futile goal. That
> would involve personal growth, and enough courage to face the world as
> yourself, and we all know that will never happen.
So when are you going to stop trying to justify your feelings that your
right and were wrong?
When are you going to stop lying to yourself about the fact that your an
asshole? You've been saying the same tired things on this NG for how many
years now. Time to take a little of your own advice you so readily dish out
to others, have a little spine and take a look at yourself instead. Painful
I know ,but its for your own good.
>
> Those of us who are comfortable and
> > sure of ourselves don't
> > need to prove anything.
>
> I can agree with that. So can you explain why it bothers you so much
> that someone doesn't believe in you?
And why do you think that no one does? Still feeling let out? Does no one
believe in you staffy? What's the saying? none protests so loudly as the
guilty?
>
> Damn logic.
>
yeah always tripping you up isn't it staffy.
Whitefell
> Safari
Rat and Swan
> >>
> >> You are right. I don't have to use mom's internet connection to post.
> >
> ><smirk> Funny how you ignore Kamatu's earlier statement that this e-mail is
> >registered in *my* name, eh, "Princess"? <bow> All bought and paid for by
> >yours truly, along with the computer. <cocks head> It's Mother's *phone*,
> >of course, in Mother's *house*... was that what you were trying to insult me
> >about? <blink> Seems silly to consider staying at home to help your poor,
> >sick mother a *bad* thing... but, whatever floats your boat.
>
> I find the fact that you are looking after you Mum not only admirable, but
> reinforcing how important family is to most weres.
<Mutts> Me too also! </Mutts>
My beloved grandmother/adoptive Mama died peacefully in our home after
two years of loving care. If I have nothing else in my life to be proud
of, I am prideful that I gave her the cherishment and affection that
made her final days confortable and secure. We made certain that she
wanted for nothing. Caring for one's elders is a vanishing skill and
that is indeed sad.
> >Wanderer
>
> -Silver
"the toad beneath the harrow knows
where each and every toothpoint goes.
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad."
-- Kipling
SONICIDE
"Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bb3fcd5.03061...@posting.google.com...
> dsa...@yahoo.co.uk (D. Saunders) wrote in message
news:<3eedfff9...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> > hyt...@netscape.net (Diortem) shall never vanquished be until great
> > Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
> > him.
> >
> > >Would you mind knocking this off? Yes, scientific fact is a wonderful
> > >thing, but there will NEVER be a day when we can explain everything.
> > >Assuming we will one day be able to explain things of the spirit, we
> > >will only come up with new questions, and to have ideas to such
> > >ananswerable questions will still surface. Its part of how things
> > >work.
> >
> > Use occams razor....
> > Either 2000 years of science is wrong and werewolves really do exist,
> > or You're indulgeing in wishful thinking.
>
> Your talking about physical only.... but on that level, I agree.
>
> However, I wont close my eyes to the possibility of more to a person
> then just the hardware. *smirks*
absolutely,
but to me the argument goes deeper, because most of the talk about the
physical has to do with the very obvious and visual, especially when
discussing werewolves. Mabee because humans by nature are very visually
oriented. For instance ,with my illness, you can't tell I'm sick just by
looking at me. It the same with illness like MS or Lupus. But they are very
real.
There are a lot of arguments made, but real agreement as to definitions as
to what is 'real proof', or what constitutes physical lycanthropy. Does he
person have to turn into the full visage of the animal? What if the just
sprout hair all over when they shift for example? What if they only sprouted
fangs? At what point do you say, yes this is physically related or not? At
what point do you say yes they are definitely a werewolf or not?
>
> To use the computer as an anlaogy, there has to be a program somewhere
> running it.... and below that, an OS trasnlating between the two....
> yes, the application software would be knowledge, but how much do we
> really know about our OS(s)? It is quite possible that some are not
> configured the same as others... or even perhaps, slightly differnt
> versions... fact is we dont have a way to find out.
>
> > Hmmm.
>
> Hmmm indeed. This could be interesting. Assuming of course, you allow
> yourself to look at the world with the openness to accept there is
> more then we see going on.
>
they whole foundation of science is to have the openness to believe there is
more to things than meets the eye and striving to find out just what that
is. IT take a very open mind to discover the truth about things, and that
is what I find so odd about many posters who scoff at the possibilities of
physical lycanthropy and do so in the name of science.
> Diortem
Ruediger LANDMANN
: "Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote in message
I think that *any* of the physical manifestations you list would suffice.
I would pay good money for any such evidence.
But the bottom line is, that "real proof" would require a self-professed
"were" to demonstrate *any* physical or sensory ability outside human
norms while "shifted".
:> To use the computer as an anlaogy, there has to be a program somewhere
:> running it.... and below that, an OS trasnlating between the two....
:> yes, the application software would be knowledge, but how much do we
:> really know about our OS(s)? It is quite possible that some are not
:> configured the same as others... or even perhaps, slightly differnt
:> versions... fact is we dont have a way to find out.
Guess what? Humans and animals are not computers...
:> > Hmmm.
:>
:> Hmmm indeed. This could be interesting. Assuming of course, you allow
:> yourself to look at the world with the openness to accept there is
:> more then we see going on.
:>
: they whole foundation of science is to have the openness to believe there is
: more to things than meets the eye and striving to find out just what that
: is. IT take a very open mind to discover the truth about things, and that
: is what I find so odd about many posters who scoff at the possibilities of
: physical lycanthropy and do so in the name of science.
:> Diortem
Because, as I've said elsewhere, science starts with observable phenomena.
What observable phenomena are you offering?
Ruediger LANDMANN
: "Totentanz" <R4\/3N...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:<vevittj...@corp.supernews.com>...
If you were only making spiritual claims, you'd have a point.
On the other hand, the nutbars here (possibly including yourself) claim to
have sensory and even physical manifestations of their "were-ness". Those
are physical claims that can be measured and therefore open to scientific
inquiry.
: Diortem, knowing IM repeating myself, but letting it happen anyway.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Ruediger LANDMANN wrote:
:>
:> SONICIDE <a...@sonicide.com> wrote:
:> : Actually there have been plenty of studies done on human AND animal
:> : emotions.
:> : I just say a show the other night that dealt with how religious faith
:> : relates to patient recovery during illness etc. Studies on things like love
:> : show definite chemical and hormonal changes our bodies go through, the same
:> : with fear or other responses. I'm sure the same goes for lycanthropy, it's
:> : just never been studied. IMO there seems to be ,if you consider shifting, a
:> : definite adrenaline factor, hence the increased strength and agility, and
:> : reduced response to pain.
:>
:> There's no such thing as "shifting". The increased strength and agility
:> and the reduced response to pain are simply the product of an overactive
:> imagination. Do you have even a *shred* of evidence to back up what you're
:> saying? Or are you just pulling all of this out of your arse?
: The odd part is that those physical changes would be somewhat easy to
: actually test. Although one may have to find some way to avoid confusing
: the results with the acuity and strength associated with a simple
: adrenaline excretion that would be typical of a human under stress (Or
: causing themselves stress for the sake of a natural high). I hope that
: dios isn't trying to claim he is a werewolf because he gets an
: adrenaline rush.
Indeed - very easy. The way to avoid the results being confused, as you
suggest, is also simple. If the claim is increased strength, the subject
would have to demonstrate strength that cannot be explained by the
mechanics of the human body, the biometrics of which are well understood.
If a statistically significant correlation existed between subjects who
tested this way and subjects who claim to be "weres" with increased
strength when shifted, we would have proof.
:> : To really study it you have to have blood tests
:> : done to check for chemicals and brain imaging, genetic testing, etc etc.
:>
:> That would come later, sure. But initially, all you'd have to do is *one*
:> of you demonstrate *one* occasion of performing *any* kind of physical or
:> sensory feat outside the human norm while "shifted". I don't think that's
:> a big ask.
: Well, it might involve someone around here making a human friend, or
: having a good enough job to pay a test subject. It seems to me that
: antisocial and unemployable seem to be defining characteristics of
: werewolves.
I get the idea that the first serious study of "weres" will come from
psychology or sociology, not from physiology.
Note also the animals they claim to have inhabiting them - most tend to be
powerful carnivores - wolves, bears, big cats, birds of prey. A smaller
group are "cute" animals - various rodents and other small mammals or
birds.
Where, Oh where are the were-slugs, were-stinkbugs, were-jellyfish, and
were-liverflukes? And since the animal population of this planet is
overwhelmingly invertebrate, why are these animals so poorly represented
amongst the animal spirits claimed to be inhabiting human bodies?
:> Again, that's just *one* of you providing *one* example.
: Don't hold your breath.
:> : I
:> : think we are too much of a minority and of little significance for the
:> : scientific community to invest that much time and expense into that kind of
:> : study.
:>
:> Especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the phenomenon
:> is real. Scientists *observe* phenomena first, before attempting to
:> explain it. You can't explain what simply isn't there.
: Well, actually I think the real problem is that the scientific community
: has invested time into understanding it, and they concluded that it was
: a form of delusion.
Well, yes, there's that :)
The phenomenon I was actually referring to were the claims of
physical/sensory enhancements through shifting. Of which there is, to my
knowledge, no evidence observed nor observable. But I'd love to be proven
wrong here.
:> : I imagine though ,even if there was conclusive scientific studies done, the
:> : skeptics here would scoff at any findings anyway.
:>
:> Not I. In fact, I'd be the first to champion your cause. Come on, "weres"
:> - I *want* be believe you.
: Well, conclusive scientific studies are a far cry from one person
: illustrating a "non-human" trait. Although, even a small start is
: something more than has ever been done around here.
Well, yes, OK :)
Ruediger LANDMANN
: "The Demon Shiya" <He...@goingsomewhere.com> wrote in message
: news:3EEF6C6E...@goingsomewhere.com...
:>
:>
:> Onespecialcat wrote:
:>
:> > So have I...lol.
:>
:> I am still wondering what sanity has to do with anything, but I guess
:> that is my silliness.
:>
:> > And let me add my 20 cents worth...
:>
:> You should throw in at least a quarter.
: why need the money? sorry your johns don't pay more.
:>
:> > You cannot prove what you feel, all you can do is describe it. If you
: are in
:> > love, how do you prove that love?
:>
:> Well, putting aside the fact that the human idea of love I feel is
:> flawed and delusional also, feelings tend to have physical
:> manifestations. They also are a shared reality of human existance. What
:> is more likely, that the idea of being a wolf is something humans have
:> deluded themselves into being for long times due to psychological
:> factors, or that for no reason whatsoever you have been infused with the
:> spirit of the wolf?
: the human idea of love is flawed and delusional? Which idea? so than the
: animals view of love isn't and the humans is? or do you think the concept of
: love is a total illusion and there is no such thing?
:>
:> > By what you say and how you behave. It cannot be scientifically proven.
:>
:> Actually, the body has measurable reactions to emotional states.
: so you acknowledge that lycanthropy is measurable and provable.
Well, yes it is - it's a mental disorder.
But if you're talking about the claims made on this newsgroup, *if* they
had any substance, yes, they'd be measurable and provable as well.
The first step is an observable phenomenon. Any takers?
:> > Spiritual things are not based
:> > in the world of scientific fact.
:>
:> This is true. However, it would seem that many try to justify their
:> spiritual beliefs using physical proof. Hey, if you were to say "I
:> believe I have the spirit of a wolf, but a human body." That would at
:> least force someone into a philisophical argument. All too often people
:> say stupid things like "I know I am a wolf because I like dogs, or
:> because I can see in the dark, or my reaction times are quicker, or
:> because I can beat people up." You see, those are not spiritual
:> manifestations. Those are easily proveable physical manifestations.
: so you acknowledge that there are easily provable physical manifestations
: of lycanthropy.
If what you were talking about were real, then yes, there would be.
:> Seriously, you could at least force the conversation into a
:> philisophical realm of spiritual discussion, but your own insecurity
:> drives you to try and justify your feelings with something more than
:> just feelings. You can blame the trolls all you want, but the fact
:> remains that if you had self confidence they would only be an easily
:> ignored PITA. Actually, you would probably have better things to do than
:> to come here and try to justify your feelings by playing let's make a
:> lie with people just as insecure as yourself.
:>
:> Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
: Ok :) I don't most posters here are out to justify any feelings, just a
: discussion of common beliefs and experiences. Just because you don't share
: in them doesn't make them any less valid for the people that do. Sorry you
: feel so left out.
I'm more than happy to be left out of your strange delusions. But I do
find you morbidly fascinating.
:> >They can laugh at our beliefs if they wish,
:> > but they are just shouting
:> > into the wind because it achieves nothing.
:>
:> If by acheive you mean it entertains us for a minute or two, then you
:> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean it makes you need to justify your
:> feelings through more and more intricate and assinine methods, then you
:> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean get you to admit you are wrong
:> and lying to yourself, you would be right. That is a futile goal. That
:> would involve personal growth, and enough courage to face the world as
:> yourself, and we all know that will never happen.
: So when are you going to stop trying to justify your feelings that your
: right and were wrong?
: When are you going to stop lying to yourself about the fact that your an
: asshole? You've been saying the same tired things on this NG for how many
: years now. Time to take a little of your own advice you so readily dish out
: to others, have a little spine and take a look at yourself instead. Painful
: I know ,but its for your own good.
You first.
:> Those of us who are comfortable and
:> > sure of ourselves don't
:> > need to prove anything.
:>
:> I can agree with that. So can you explain why it bothers you so much
:> that someone doesn't believe in you?
: And why do you think that no one does? Still feeling let out? Does no one
: believe in you staffy? What's the saying? none protests so loudly as the
: guilty?
:>
:> Damn logic.
:>
: yeah always tripping you up isn't it staffy.
PKB.
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Respectful question: Would this be somewhat like the beliefs in
: astrological influences? Such as "I am a Leo." which carries so much
: *more* in the four words than the simple statement gives? The statement
: *means* "I have the characteristics commonly associated with this sign,
: I was born in the correct frame of time, I believe that this sign
: affects my actions and that astrology is valid for me.", but is
: condensed into "I am a Leo." because others who understand astrology
: know automatically what the speaker is saying.
If that were all that people here were professing, then I think you'd be
right on the money.
But I've yet to hear the most ardent believer in astrology claim that
being a Leo gives them the senses or strength of a lion, or that being a
Scorpio means that their skin fluouresces under black light...
: Am I close? Am I all wet? :) if I am correct, then the statement would
: mean not "I have chosen to be a Leo" or "I believe my name is Leo." or
: even "I am a lion" but instead "I believe that the framework of the sign
: "Leo" fits me properly so I move within it."
: Degrees of belief in astrology range from the skeptics tothe occasional
: reader of a newspaper horoscope to those who let it guide their lives to
: the ones who draw up charts and research planetary orbits and
: geographical birth locales and times of day etc. IOW a continuum of
: involvement. Would I be correct?
Perfectly, and again, I don't think hecklers have much to say to those
whose understanding of their "wereness" extends as far as that. That's a
level of spiritual/religious belief not dissimilar to those of many
indigineous systems of belief around the world who have totemic or clan
animals.
: Yep. I believe that George Washington existed, even if I never saw him
: and couldn't *prove* it one way or another. After all... we have papers
: etc supposedly written by him, but do we have any actual *hard evidence*
: that those ivory dentures and Mount Vernon were *really* *his*? It could
: all be an elaborate hoax. My money's on it being true, however. :)
George Washington's existence is not a particularly outrageous or
extraordinary claim, so no particularly extraordinary evidence is required
to support it. If I were suggesting that Washington was really an alien
being who came to Earth around the year 80 BCE to guide humanity towards
the American War of Independence and only left in a flash of light after
George Bush Snr was inducted into office, I would require substantially
better evidence.
:> If your talking Hollywood, its impossible to prove that a human can turn
:> into a wolf ,because a human is a human and a wolf is a wolf, 2 totally
:> separate things.
:> Someone thinking that the Hollywood version of lycanthropy as being anything
:> related to the real deal is about as stupid as assuming that if we found
:> extraterrestrial life,it would be like the ones in the movies.
: Good analogy.
:
:> But then I guess this is the same old crap being debated on the NG that
:> always has been.
:>
:> whitefell
: Comments continue below.
:> "David" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
:> news:3ecf7bbe...@news.cis.dfn.de...
:> > CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> shall never
:> > vanquished be until great Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves.
:> > hill shall come against him.
:> >
:> > >According to your advice, I have checked up my internal conceptions with
:> > >scientific evidence. It adds up, your claims do not.
:> >
:> > I'm sorry, But I don't know of ANY (reputable) scientist who would
:> > belive that you realy are a werewolf.
: I can't speak to that. Perhaps we are all solipsists with delusions of
: commonality?
Also possible. But the reality I'm experiencing is pretty convincing. To
really have any meaningful exchange with anyone else, we have to take the
basic assumption that we are inhabiting the same reality.
: On Usenet we're all pixels.
:> > I'm afraid you must emprically prove that you are a werewolf.
:> > Otherwise, all that spews from your fingers and mouth is BULLSHIT.
:> > HTH.
: What is your investment in this? You give your time and effort to
: refuting things. Why is it important to you? Live and let live.
*I* know. Do you?
:> > http://www.wsws.org
Diortem
Doesnt shock me in the least. Science as it is taught has become less
of a sense of discovery and more of a religion in which your text is
your bible. A sad but true reality... probably why a few in peticular
cant except a little religiousness in the mix...
Diortem
D. Saunders
That's all very nice but where is your emprical indepent proof of
werewolves?
hmmm.. What do you mean you have none?
Eh well, That's the end of that.
Diortem
Of course not. Humans and animals are organic, where as a computer is
in-organic. But tell me something, couldnt you concider the human body
and all it's components simply a very complex machine that happpens to
be biological in nature? By this comparison, my statement remains
true...
>
> :> > Hmmm.
> :>
> :> Hmmm indeed. This could be interesting. Assuming of course, you allow
> :> yourself to look at the world with the openness to accept there is
> :> more then we see going on.
> :>
> : they whole foundation of science is to have the openness to believe there is
> : more to things than meets the eye and striving to find out just what that
> : is. IT take a very open mind to discover the truth about things, and that
> : is what I find so odd about many posters who scoff at the possibilities of
> : physical lycanthropy and do so in the name of science.
> :> Diortem
>
> Because, as I've said elsewhere, science starts with observable phenomena.
> What observable phenomena are you offering?
Im not looking at physical phenomina at all. I never really did. You
made that assumption, not me.
Diortem, much more interested in the computer/animal debate then this
last part.
Ruediger LANDMANN
:> :> To use the computer as an anlaogy, there has to be a program somewhere
:> :> running it.... and below that, an OS trasnlating between the two....
:> :> yes, the application software would be knowledge, but how much do we
:> :> really know about our OS(s)? It is quite possible that some are not
:> :> configured the same as others... or even perhaps, slightly differnt
:> :> versions... fact is we dont have a way to find out.
:>
:> Guess what? Humans and animals are not computers...
: Of course not. Humans and animals are organic, where as a computer is
: in-organic. But tell me something, couldnt you concider the human body
: and all it's components simply a very complex machine that happpens to
: be biological in nature?
Of course.
: By this comparison, my statement remains
: true...
No. Basically, the whole stupid computer analogy boils down to -
"Computers need an operating system as a middle layer between applications
and hardware, therefore animals must have an operating system too". What
makes this necessarily true?
:> Because, as I've said elsewhere, science starts with observable phenomena.
:> What observable phenomena are you offering?
:
: Im not looking at physical phenomina at all. I never really did. You
: made that assumption, not me.
:
: Diortem, much more interested in the computer/animal debate then this
: last part.
Not really seperable. If "were" were anything else than entirely in your
head (or, being very generous, something purely spiritual), there would be
observable phenomena associated with it.
"My God, Igor, this man has the brainwave patterns of.... of... a WOLF!"
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Doesnt shock me in the least. Science as it is taught has become less
: of a sense of discovery and more of a religion in which your text is
: your bible. A sad but true reality... probably why a few in peticular
: cant except a little religiousness in the mix...
*Shock* I might even agree with the first part of this post. However,
educating mass amounts of students in circumstances which are very rarely
ideal is generally not conducive to instilling a deep understanding of the
philosophy of science. Educators and education systems will generally be
happy to "call it a draw" if students can be taught some basic principles
even if they don't get to a point where they understand how those
principles came to be deduced. The same could be said for the humanities.
The education system is usually the whipping-boy in these laments about
"what kids these days are taught" but it's probably got at least as much
to do with a culture in which an ability to reason or actually know
anything is not held up as being as valuable as the ability to kick a ball
or to look glamorous on TV. The education system is not starting on a
level playing field anyway.
But I disagree with your call of mixing science and religion. If religion
makes claims that touch on the material world, then science can be used
to investigate those claims. In such cases, these claims are generally
shown to be groundless, which is why mainstream religion has generally
stopped making such claims over the last couple of centuries, preferring
to confine itself to areas outside the reach of scientific scrutiny.
Diortem
> In alt.horror.werewolves Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> :> :> To use the computer as an anlaogy, there has to be a program somewhere
> :> :> running it.... and below that, an OS trasnlating between the two....
> :> :> yes, the application software would be knowledge, but how much do we
> :> :> really know about our OS(s)? It is quite possible that some are not
> :> :> configured the same as others... or even perhaps, slightly differnt
> :> :> versions... fact is we dont have a way to find out.
> :>
> :> Guess what? Humans and animals are not computers...
>
> : Of course not. Humans and animals are organic, where as a computer is
> : in-organic. But tell me something, couldnt you concider the human body
> : and all it's components simply a very complex machine that happpens to
> : be biological in nature?
>
> Of course.
>
> : By this comparison, my statement remains
> : true...
>
> No. Basically, the whole stupid computer analogy boils down to -
> "Computers need an operating system as a middle layer between applications
> and hardware, therefore animals must have an operating system too". What
> makes this necessarily true?
Like the OS, something has to be inbetween the hardward (body) and the
software (knowledge, however it was gained (experience, or in most
cases here, books)). In the computer's case, that is the OS, in ours,
the sentience... or spirit. It is said technology often mimicks
nature, how would this be any different?
> :> Because, as I've said elsewhere, science starts with observable phenomena.
> :> What observable phenomena are you offering?
> :
> : Im not looking at physical phenomina at all. I never really did. You
> : made that assumption, not me.
> :
> : Diortem, much more interested in the computer/animal debate then this
> : last part.
>
> Not really seperable. If "were" were anything else than entirely in your
> head (or, being very generous, something purely spiritual)
Wow, such generosity to show that perhaps some people out there
concider more then the physical world. Im shocked (that you concider
that generous).
> , there would be observable phenomena associated with it.
What kind of physical phenomina would you be looking for? DO you even
know? Or are you just trying to be difficult?
> "My God, Igor, this man has the brainwave patterns of.... of... a WOLF!"
Ok, if your working on brains and have "Igor" working for you, you
have issues I wont even begin to touch.
Diortem
Diortem
> Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : Doesnt shock me in the least. Science as it is taught has become less
> : of a sense of discovery and more of a religion in which your text is
> : your bible. A sad but true reality... probably why a few in peticular
> : cant except a little religiousness in the mix...
>
> *Shock* I might even agree with the first part of this post. However,
> educating mass amounts of students in circumstances which are very rarely
> ideal is generally not conducive to instilling a deep understanding of the
> philosophy of science. Educators and education systems will generally be
> happy to "call it a draw" if students can be taught some basic principles
> even if they don't get to a point where they understand how those
> principles came to be deduced. The same could be said for the humanities.
There lies the problem. You are repeating what I am saying, though
admittedly, not being as blunt about it.
> The education system is usually the whipping-boy in these laments about
> "what kids these days are taught" but it's probably got at least as much
> to do with a culture in which an ability to reason or actually know
> anything is not held up as being as valuable as the ability to kick a ball
> or to look glamorous on TV. The education system is not starting on a
> level playing field anyway.
Sadly, I can not dissagree with that at all. But it doesnt change my
claim. If anything, it supports it, just giving reasons why it is
right. Im not trying to say who's fault it is. Im just saying this is
whats happening.
> But I disagree with your call of mixing science and religion. If religion
> makes claims that touch on the material world, then science can be used
> to investigate those claims. In such cases, these claims are generally
> shown to be groundless, which is why mainstream religion has generally
> stopped making such claims over the last couple of centuries, preferring
> to confine itself to areas outside the reach of scientific scrutiny.
Ok, how this connects to some people being unable to accept the mix, I
dont know, but I will let that slide for now. Frankly, those who I was
refurring to will know and thats what matters there.
However, I have a slightly different scew to your view on how the two
mix. Often, I find if your not going to look at religion literally,
the two actually support each other, not come at odds. Take a look at
what a religion tells you, not literally, but in a figurative way....
then look to science for the literal end.
Diortem
Wanderer
> Excuse me, but... how is gathering recipies evil? I doubt a frying pan
> can be used to summon something or cause a curse.... though I would
> laugh to see a recipie for a curse like that.
>
> Diortem, standing beside himself in awe at how cooking has become a
> black art all of a sudden.
<wry look> If you could've seen my first attempt at cream puffs...
<shudder> That was enough of a curse for anyone!;)
Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
Yours with a smile and a good two-egg cake,
The culinary,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Wanderer
"D. Saunders" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3eedfff9...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Use occams razor....
> Either 2000 years of science is wrong and werewolves really do exist,
> or You're indulgeing in wishful thinking.
>
I'm curious... what scientific law are we violating?:>
Yours with a keen intellect,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
that considers the woman who brought them into this world as the precious
jewel she is.
Yours with condolences for Rat and Swan,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
"Rat and Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EF0C6...@pacbell.net...
Wanderer
>
> Well, putting aside the fact that the human idea of love I feel is
> flawed and delusional also,
Ah, an aphoric. Suddenly, it all makes sense...
> feelings tend to have physical
> manifestations. They also are a shared reality of human existance. What
> is more likely, that the idea of being a wolf is something humans have
> deluded themselves into being for long times due to psychological
> factors, or that for no reason whatsoever you have been infused with the
> spirit of the wolf?
<shrug> As neither I nor any other being on the face of the planet has
recorded a means of analyzing the spirit, I am incapable of refining a
probability estimate based upon those factors.
Or, put bluntly, "You tell me... how likely is a given spirit to be a
wolf?".:>
<snip>
>
> Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
<shrug> Okay... I don't think my being able to hear dog whistles matters
much one way or the other for being lupine-natured. It's neat, sure, but it
has nothing to do with the longings that stir in my soul when I hear the
howl of a wolf, seeking out his packmates.
Of course, I could be wrong... :>
> If by acheive you mean it entertains us for a minute or two, then you
> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean it makes you need to justify your
> feelings through more and more intricate and assinine methods, then you
> would be wrong. If by acheive you mean get you to admit you are wrong
> and lying to yourself, you would be right. That is a futile goal. That
> would involve personal growth, and enough courage to face the world as
> yourself, and we all know that will never happen.
>
<shakes head> Poor Safari. You just don't understand, do you?
These *are* our true selves.:) The selves that want to bite when we are
angry, howl into the darkness when we are lonely... and dream of hearing an
answer. What can be more purely ourselves than that which is our spirit?
Through the mask of the computer, Safari, we reveal ourselves for what we
are... and that, poor thing, is why I sorrow for you. Not pity... you
neither need nor deserve pity. I sorrow for you, that you are so battered
and broken as to fear love and its pleasures.
Good night, Safari. Oh, and God sends His regards... says you haven't been
returning His messages lately.
Yours quietly,
The honest,
D. Saunders
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
>Now *this* piques my curiousity...
>
>"D. Saunders" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3eedfff9...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> Use occams razor....
>> Either 2000 years of science is wrong and werewolves really do exist,
>> or You're indulgeing in wishful thinking.
>>
>
>I'm curious... what scientific law are we violating?:>
The Idea of pee-Shifting (most were's claim to have done this)
violates not only the first, But also the second laws of
thermodynamics.
Also, It violates 2000 years of biological observations.
(except possibly in roman times, when, since they were foribben to
dissect people, they did it on dogs instead, and they thought that we,
like dogs, had a 5 lobed liver.)
Lycanthropy a la "the Duchess of Malfi" Is certainly possible as form
of madness. Its' also a good play, Very violent and entertaining, not
that the two are mutally exlusive, but Dr. Faustus is unbeatable,
Marlowe? What a man, amazing. he'd written tamburlain and some other
one (jew of malta?) by the time he was 23. And he was a spy. w00t.
however It would have been noticed if people could "mentaly shift"
into "wolfs" the way various "were's" have claimed.
Diortem
> "Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:bb3fcd5.03060...@posting.google.com...
> > Excuse me, but... how is gathering recipies evil? I doubt a frying pan
> > can be used to summon something or cause a curse.... though I would
> > laugh to see a recipie for a curse like that.
> >
> > Diortem, standing beside himself in awe at how cooking has become a
> > black art all of a sudden.
>
> <wry look> If you could've seen my first attempt at cream puffs...
> <shudder> That was enough of a curse for anyone!;)
>
> Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
You dont want me to. My cooking has been compared to Akane's before.
Diortem, actually knows how to boil water, though.
Markus Stehr
> > Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
I could contribute a recipe for a sauerbraten or some other german plain
fare.
> You dont want me to. My cooking has been compared to Akane's before.
> Diortem, actually knows how to boil water, though.
Autsch, thats though ;)
WIth an electric water boiler can or with a pot?
JuremoPakwim the werelion!
Wanderer
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> shall never vanquished be until great
> Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
> him.
>
> >Now *this* piques my curiousity...
> >
> >"D. Saunders" <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3eedfff9...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >> Use occams razor....
> >> Either 2000 years of science is wrong and werewolves really do exist,
> >> or You're indulgeing in wishful thinking.
> >>
> >
> >I'm curious... what scientific law are we violating?:>
>
> The Idea of pee-Shifting (most were's claim to have done this)
> violates not only the first, But also the second laws of
> thermodynamics.
Hm. To begin with, most weres do *not* claim to have physically altered
their appearance and/or physical composition. A bare handful have ever
claimed this, and none have offered proof... as you would have known, had
you bothered to read the FAQ for this newsgroup before firing your textual
projectiles. Nohow.
Contrariwise, many of us *want* to physically shift. To make visible that
difference we carry within us. To have some visual hint that points out to
people what we feel like inside. (This applies only to werecreatures such
as myself, of course; while some of our human members would not mind being
able to shapeshift, most admit to different feelings than ours.)
>
> Also, It violates 2000 years of biological observations.
> (except possibly in roman times, when, since they were foribben to
> dissect people, they did it on dogs instead, and they thought that we,
> like dogs, had a 5 lobed liver.)
While stories of werewolves abound in Roman times (especially in mythology),
only stories are referenced; Petronius' tale of Niceros is a favorite of
mine. These hold the same position as urban myths, however; Petronius heard
it from Cicero, who swears that Claudius told it him after hearing it from
Pliny, et cetera.
Oh, and don't knock Galen; it's not his fault that the gladiators he
attended as doctor were so seldom killed by blows to the head or gut. He
learned a lot about the circulatory system and the muscles, though...
> Lycanthropy a la "the Duchess of Malfi" Is certainly possible as form
> of madness. Its' also a good play, Very violent and entertaining, not
> that the two are mutally exlusive, but Dr. Faustus is unbeatable,
> Marlowe? What a man, amazing. he'd written tamburlain and some other
> one (jew of malta?) by the time he was 23. And he was a spy. w00t.
I dislike "Malfi", but agree with your opinion of "Faustus". An excellent
work, especially when staged correctly.
>
> however It would have been noticed if people could "mentaly shift"
> into "wolfs" the way various "were's" have claimed.
>
As mental shifts occur in the *mind* ("mental" shifts, please note), I
rather doubt the average Roman would have noticed, save under highly unusual
circumstances.
Yours coolly,
The factual,
Wanderer
> > Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
>
> You dont want me to. My cooking has been compared to Akane's before.
<wince> Gah! Well, nobody said it had to be a recipe you could *make*...
just one you *enjoy*. You're welcome to submit one of your mother's
recipes, if you like...
>
> Diortem, actually knows how to boil water, though.
Yes, but what happens if I throw it on you?;)
(For the non-hentai in the group, Akane is the girlfriend/fiancee of the
main character in Ranma 1/2, one of the silliest transformation-based anime
ever.:)
Yours wolfishly,
The anime-watching,
Wanderer
news:bd3opb$n2a$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> > > Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
>
> I could contribute a recipe for a sauerbraten or some other german plain
> fare.
>
By all means!:) After all, a recipe doesn't have to be fancy to be
useful... I'm contributing two recipes myself, and neither is Cordon Bleu.
Yours with an eye out for recipes,
The watchful,
Amethyst
On 22-Jun-2003, "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote:
> (For the non-hentai in the group, Akane is the girlfriend/fiancee of the
> main character in Ranma 1/2, one of the silliest transformation-based
> anime
> ever.:)
Ranma is Hentai? Since when? I mean it might have the occasional panty
shots and awkward sexual innuendos, but it certainly couldn't be considered
hentai... even soft core... lol.. Personally I liked Maze better myself
for gender bending... grin.. and you gotta love Dilandue in Escaflowne....
or The Star Lights in Sailor Moon.... :)
Amethyst (who also watches anime... a lot of it... )
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Sadly, I can not dissagree with that at all. But it doesnt change my
: claim. If anything, it supports it, just giving reasons why it is
: right. Im not trying to say who's fault it is. Im just saying this is
: whats happening.
Agreed. But I get the impression that you think it's a far bigger deal
than it is. Accepting on faith scientific principles that *can* be
verified and reproduced if one is so inclined to do so is a very different
prospect from accepting religious beliefs that cannot be shown to be true
(whatever "true" even means in religion).
So while it's far from ideal for people to treat their science text like a
catechism, it still leaves them with *some* idea about how the universe
around them really works.
:> But I disagree with your call of mixing science and religion. If religion
:> makes claims that touch on the material world, then science can be used
:> to investigate those claims. In such cases, these claims are generally
:> shown to be groundless, which is why mainstream religion has generally
:> stopped making such claims over the last couple of centuries, preferring
:> to confine itself to areas outside the reach of scientific scrutiny.
: Ok, how this connects to some people being unable to accept the mix, I
: dont know, but I will let that slide for now. Frankly, those who I was
: refurring to will know and thats what matters there.
I'm saying that there *is* no mix, and indeed can be no mix.
: However, I have a slightly different scew to your view on how the two
: mix. Often, I find if your not going to look at religion literally,
: the two actually support each other, not come at odds. Take a look at
: what a religion tells you, not literally, but in a figurative way....
: then look to science for the literal end.
Some example of how science and religion support each other?
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Like the OS, something has to be inbetween the hardward (body) and the
: software (knowledge, however it was gained (experience, or in most
: cases here, books)).
Or all knowledge could be something like firmware for our bodies. Or
something else completely dissimilar to a conventional electronic
computer. Or a mixture of all kinds of different interactions between
knowledge and meat.
: In the computer's case, that is the OS, in ours,
: the sentience... or spirit. It is said technology often mimicks
: nature, how would this be any different?
Because just because something is "said" doesn't make it true, let alone
necessarily true.
: Wow, such generosity to show that perhaps some people out there
: concider more then the physical world. Im shocked (that you concider
: that generous).
It's generous because I'm offering you the only "out" for your side of the
argument. If you retreat back to a position of saying that "were" is just
another religious belief amongst so many thousands of others and has no
manifestation whatsoever in the physical world, then no scientific
argument can be brought to bear - it's no longer a scientific question.
Is this how you understand "were"?
Diortem
> "Diortem" <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:bb3fcd5.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > Say, care to contribute a recipe?:)
> >
> > You dont want me to. My cooking has been compared to Akane's before.
>
> <wince> Gah! Well, nobody said it had to be a recipe you could *make*...
> just one you *enjoy*. You're welcome to submit one of your mother's
> recipes, if you like...
>
> >
> > Diortem, actually knows how to boil water, though.
>
> Yes, but what happens if I throw it on you?;)
Thankfully it doesnt induce a transformation, but that doesnt change
the fact that you would have one wet, burned, and pissed off were-cat
on your hands.
>
> (For the non-hentai in the group, Akane is the girlfriend/fiancee of the
> main character in Ranma 1/2, one of the silliest transformation-based anime
> ever.:)
For the record, Ranma 1/2 is not hentai.... racey, oh god yes... but
not hentai.
Diortem, Not about to let you NEAR me with anything boiling. :)
Diortem
> In alt.mcdonalds.crew Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : Like the OS, something has to be inbetween the hardward (body) and the
> : software (knowledge, however it was gained (experience, or in most
> : cases here, books)).
>
> Or all knowledge could be something like firmware for our bodies. Or
> something else completely dissimilar to a conventional electronic
> computer. Or a mixture of all kinds of different interactions between
> knowledge and meat.
But even if you take your firmware theory, that would mean that you
have to have something inside you with it "wired" in. So therefor,
your not learning, you are only re-remembering. However, even if you
reject this idea (which I do), "firmware" still requires "drivers" so
that the main system can use them... pointing back to the OS scinario.
If you want to go with something completely different, could you
explain you idea for it?
>
> : In the computer's case, that is the OS, in ours,
> : the sentience... or spirit. It is said technology often mimicks
> : nature, how would this be any different?
>
> Because just because something is "said" doesn't make it true, let alone
> necessarily true.
Ok, you obviously missed the point. Let me rephrase: Do you have a
better idea?
> : Wow, such generosity to show that perhaps some people out there
> : concider more then the physical world. Im shocked (that you concider
> : that generous).
>
> It's generous because I'm offering you the only "out" for your side of the
> argument. If you retreat back to a position of saying that "were" is just
> another religious belief amongst so many thousands of others and has no
> manifestation whatsoever in the physical world, then no scientific
> argument can be brought to bear - it's no longer a scientific question.
>
> Is this how you understand "were"?
I dont know if I would call it a religion, per, se... but I do see it
in a spiritual (and therefor, mental) element. But for the record,
giving me an "out" would mean that I didnt see such an argument before
you said it. You gave me nothing in this regard. All "we" did was come
to an appearant point we can agree on.... well, assuming Im reading
you right (and I dont care to double check... as I SERIOUSLY would
rather focus on the other part of this argument... that is far more
interesting to me.)
Diortem
Diortem
> In alt.mcdonalds.crew Diortem <hyt...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : Sadly, I can not dissagree with that at all. But it doesnt change my
> : claim. If anything, it supports it, just giving reasons why it is
> : right. Im not trying to say who's fault it is. Im just saying this is
> : whats happening.
>
> Agreed. But I get the impression that you think it's a far bigger deal
> than it is. Accepting on faith scientific principles that *can* be
> verified and reproduced if one is so inclined to do so is a very different
> prospect from accepting religious beliefs that cannot be shown to be true
> (whatever "true" even means in religion).
>
> So while it's far from ideal for people to treat their science text like a
> catechism, it still leaves them with *some* idea about how the universe
> around them really works.
Cant blame a guy for wishing that more could break out and see these
rules, not as barriers, but tools and perhaps use them to look for the
new, not just deny what we cant touch yet because the tools dont go
far enough.
>
> :> But I disagree with your call of mixing science and religion. If religion
> :> makes claims that touch on the material world, then science can be used
> :> to investigate those claims. In such cases, these claims are generally
> :> shown to be groundless, which is why mainstream religion has generally
> :> stopped making such claims over the last couple of centuries, preferring
> :> to confine itself to areas outside the reach of scientific scrutiny.
>
> : Ok, how this connects to some people being unable to accept the mix, I
> : dont know, but I will let that slide for now. Frankly, those who I was
> : refurring to will know and thats what matters there.
>
> I'm saying that there *is* no mix, and indeed can be no mix.
Ah, ok... so your wrong. While the spirit is not able to have science
mix (yet (and I dont know if that will ever change)), there are other
elements that can mix them.
>
> : However, I have a slightly different scew to your view on how the two
> : mix. Often, I find if your not going to look at religion literally,
> : the two actually support each other, not come at odds. Take a look at
> : what a religion tells you, not literally, but in a figurative way....
> : then look to science for the literal end.
>
> Some example of how science and religion support each other?
I gave one in another argument, but lets take it even further... the
very beginning of Genesis story.... God said "Let there be light." and
there was light. Now we know light was created. But how? We look to
science and see the theory of "The Big Bang" in which the universe
literally exploded into being. Whats next to be created in Genesis?
The stars. Now look to science... Galaxies and Stars were also the
first to form (hey, this is also written by some primitave guy who
couldnt have known what a galaxy was, so I cut some slack on that).
Catching a trend here? One could well guide the other to more specific
answers, allowing a mix to occur.
Diortem.
Ruediger LANDMANN
:> Or all knowledge could be something like firmware for our bodies. Or
:> something else completely dissimilar to a conventional electronic
:> computer. Or a mixture of all kinds of different interactions between
:> knowledge and meat.
: But even if you take your firmware theory,
I wouldn't dignify it by calling it a theory - just the suggestion of
another model, plucked completely out of the air in exactly the same way
you did.
: that would mean that you
: have to have something inside you with it "wired" in. So therefor,
: your not learning, you are only re-remembering.
Which may, or may not be, how what we know interacts with our meat (at
least some of the time, with or without other processes also going on
simultaneously or non-simultaneously... etc...)
: However, even if you
: reject this idea (which I do), "firmware" still requires "drivers" so
: that the main system can use them... pointing back to the OS scinario.
Let's say this firmware doesn't.
: If you want to go with something completely different, could you
: explain you idea for it?
I have no idea of what it is or isn't. I'm just suggesting that it's very
silly to latch onto the model of an electronic computer and insist that
the biological computers that are our brains must function along parallel
lines. You're the one holding out the analogy - it's up to you to
demonstrate how it works. You're the one who bears the burden of showing
which parts of the human nervous system relate to the different functions
of an OS and application software...
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the lines between
hardware/software/firmware are far far sharper than any such thing that
exists in our bodies.
:> : In the computer's case, that is the OS, in ours,
:> : the sentience... or spirit. It is said technology often mimicks
:> : nature, how would this be any different?
:>
:> Because just because something is "said" doesn't make it true, let alone
:> necessarily true.
: Ok, you obviously missed the point. Let me rephrase: Do you have a
: better idea?
Personally, no. But I have encountered other hypotheses that I find far
more persuasive than yours, many by people who are actually qualified in
the fields that they're talking about.
:> : Wow, such generosity to show that perhaps some people out there
:> : concider more then the physical world. Im shocked (that you concider
:> : that generous).
:>
:> It's generous because I'm offering you the only "out" for your side of the
:> argument. If you retreat back to a position of saying that "were" is just
:> another religious belief amongst so many thousands of others and has no
:> manifestation whatsoever in the physical world, then no scientific
:> argument can be brought to bear - it's no longer a scientific question.
:>
:> Is this how you understand "were"?
: I dont know if I would call it a religion, per, se... but I do see it
: in a spiritual (and therefor, mental) element.
So how would you distinhuish it from imagination?
D. Saunders
Birnam wood to high alt.horror.werewolves. hill shall come against
him.
>> Lycanthropy a la "the Duchess of Malfi" Is certainly possible as form
>> of madness. Its' also a good play, Very violent and entertaining, not
>> that the two are mutally exlusive, but Dr. Faustus is unbeatable,
>> Marlowe? What a man, amazing. he'd written tamburlain and some other
>> one (jew of malta?) by the time he was 23. And he was a spy. w00t.
>
>I dislike "Malfi", but agree with your opinion of "Faustus". An excellent
>work, especially when staged correctly.
It depends on the version. Comedy doesn't always translate very well
down the ages, since connatations and even words change their meaning.
However since the B text is mosly slapstick, it can work. but since
they butchered out all the lovely bits "Christs blood streaming in the
firmament" for the blashpehy stage laws, (since the puritans on the
london council hated plays and playhouses).
Thus IMO, the A text is better and is now almost universally
recogniszed as the original verision.
SONICIDE
>
> Also, It violates 2000 years of biological observations.
lol! what total bullshit? do you know ANYTHING about biology?
All life forms change over time. And there are animals that can change their
appearance quickly, such as the cuttle fish. Frogs completely morph
themselves. There are example all through nature of animals mimicking other
animals (usually for defense purposes). All young animals go through drastic
physical changes to adulthood.Its all part of physical biology.
Change is natures way, and a very important aspect of life. We as weres
harken toward a feral and in the case of the wolf phenotype predatory
nature. Have you never even heard of
convergence? Where genetically unrelated species take on similar
characteristics because of an their adaptation to the same type of
environment/lifestyle? New traits are formed in all species to form new
species
.
hhmmm it sure does seem there are many who feel threatened by the
possibility of the existence of werewolves. A new form of human that might
shake things up for the status quo. A critter
with brains of a human but the wild nature of an animal predator could have
a definite evolutionary advantage in the long run.
And it certainly is in the human species nature to try and stamp out anyone
who is different, you see it in all walks of society, humans like
conformity.
So if you choose to believe werewolves can't exist that's totally your right
to your opinion.
Some of us choose to believe other wise. You have your reasons for believing
what you do and we have ours, but ultimately the truth is independent of all
our opinions.
Whitefell
SONICIDE
> Excuse me, but... how is gathering recipies evil? I doubt a frying pan
> can be used to summon something or cause a curse.... though I would
> laugh to see a recipie for a curse like that.
>
> Diortem, standing beside himself in awe at how cooking has become a
> black art all of a sudden.
everything I cook comes out kinda evil! hee hee next time I burn something I
can just blame it on the fires of hell >: D fuck it, I say eat it raw!
WF
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah
> It's great to be a human being. Which makes me wonder why anyone would
> fantasise that they were anything other, unless at some level they felt
> that they had somehow "failed" as human beings.
You do not know how I feel, you cannot if you are not me! I have tried
once pretending to be humand and I have tried later accepting the wolf
within fully I know the diffirence. You have NO IDEA how GREAT it is to
have a wolf in there... You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER... You are plain
human bullshitsucker... You have NO IDEA...
I guess I should feel sorry for you.
--
I could run like the wind just to be with you.
Observer aka DustWolf aka CyberLegend aka Jure Sah
C'ya!
--
Cellphone: +38640809676 (SMS enabled)
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Trst je naš, Dunaja ne damo; Solmuna pa tud ne. Za vstop v EU. ;]
The future of AI is in technology integration,
we have prepared everything for you:
http://www.aimetasearch.com/ici/index.htm
MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)