The dragon archetype and a.f.d.
Greffindel
"We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of dreams."
Certainly one view of dragons is to see them as the expression of a
Jungian archetype (presumably, that of the horrible monster to be
defeated or by which to be defeated), and therefore as something
immutable which we can either conquer or surrender to.
There are different archetype-ish conceptions of the dragon. Some
cultures associate the dragon with nature, some with wisdom in
general. Western culture (going back, apparently, to the Babylonians
if not the Sumerians) went for 'monster', and some continue to stick
to it. You can see this in the way Hebrew and Greek words in the
Bible which refer to 'monster' or 'behemoth' have been translated by
many as 'dragon'-- to them, it was a perfectly good synonym.
Another alternative to the 'archetype' view is more complex and
subtle. It associates dragons with (and understands their psychological
significance in terms of) faeries, goblins, gnomes, unicorns, and
other creatures which, though perhaps magickal, were in a wider sense
part of nature-- forces which interact with each other and with the
more tangible parts of the natural world. All of these creatures
could be benign, malevolent, wise, foolish, sombre, or merry--
depending on their own disposition, and the teller of the tale.
This conception may never have been strictly literal-- some people may
have honestly believed that dragons and faeries were no less real and
tangible than horses and chickens. But on a psychological level,
dragons, faeries, and so on express humanity's wonder at the natural
world, both in its order and in its randomness.
Jung took this conception, and turned it upside down; he put the
dragons inside us and made them refer not to the physical world, but
to the strange landscape of humanity's inner nature. This is an
interesting idea; I don't think many folks here find it so compelling
that they'd accept Jung's archetype theory as the sum total of what
dragons are, but it is interesting.
Either way, the point of a.f.d. is that we *are* the dragons. We're
on about what dragons would do if they thought the way we do. And
rather than take a prefabricated conception of dragonhood and swallow
it whole (even if it is the product of a respected psychoanalyst, or
of the deep roots of our culture), we choose to map it out ourselves,
and to make our own worldview.
Rather than lay back and experience dreams which our subconscious
hands to us, we choose to direct, to inspire, and in this slightly
roundabout way, to live them.
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.
--Greffindel the Plaid
(I forget where Willy Wonka got the quote; I think it's Shakespeare
but offhand I couldn't say for sure.)
Wyrm
Greetings.
sin...@olywa.net spake thus:
>Actually, archetypes are not to be surrendered to or conquered.
Not completely true according to Jung. He states that we must understand
the role played by the archetypes in the particular psychological type,
which is akin to saying that you are conquering it.
>However, these subconscious ideas are REAL, even if we can't
>consciously come to terms with them. But that is why we have
>archetypes; the archetypes are mechanisms that allow ideas and
>patterns from the unconscious to come into our conscious minds.
Archetypes aren't the mechanisms, they are the patterns and ideas. the
mechanism is when rational thought is suspended, or unable to function for
some reason.
>I honestly hope that someone does some SERIOUS research into
>archetypes and then comes back with some variable points of view.
I've posted my paper on Dragon Archetypes that I did some time back. I've
modified it slightly to bring it up to date, but most of it still applies.
>According to Campbell, there are two types of "archetypes", closely
>related. There is the UNIVERSAL archetype, the symbol representing
>ideals shared by all humans, and there are CULTURAL archetypes, which
>represent the specific attitudes that the particular culture has
>towards the universal ideas.
This is Jung's conjecture also. Dragons, being cultural, would probably
fall into the latter type of archetype.
>For example, in most cultures, incest is taboo. In some cultures, it
>is the duty of the father. Neither view changes the FACTS of incest,
>of which Freud probably got closest yet with his Oedipus/Electra
>complexes, but they are two different views based on cultural
>differences.
Jung's view of incest is associated with the Extroverted type, the
suppressed unconcious finding an outlet in the libido. It is seen as a
problem with that type.
>So if you want to find the truth of dragons, don't say "dragons are
>good because Oriental dragons were good and we can now ignore two
>millennia of western history". That makes no sense. Instead, ask
>yourself what the common threads between the eastern and western
>dragon are. I'm sure the first one you come across is Power. Yet in
>neither does Happiness occur.
Power is a relatively modern interpretation of the Dragon. By doing that
you are ignoring four millennium of history before the two that the
Christian image has been present for. The Eastern Dragon was not originally
a symbol of power, it was a symbol of the start of the rains, the
life-giver you could say. The 'Western' Dragon started as part of the
creation myth.
One can only associate the Dragon with power in that all the images of
ancient civillisations were powerful.
>Where do you think the concept of dragons came from in the first
>place? Nowhere? Magic? Fantasy? Where does fantasy come from?
>Where do all ideas come from?
>They come from inside. Do not say that Jung put the dragon into our
>psyche, say rather that the dragon sprang FROM our psyche.
The Dragon did not 'spring' from the psyche so much, but rather was
'demanded' by it. The Hero archetype needed something to dominate over and
the Dragon fills that niche nicely.
>Dragons don't think the way you do. They don't think at all. They
>simply are. And they ARE with a purpose. That purpose is to tell you
>things about yourself. You're not listening to yourself.
Dragons think. They think as part of the unconcious mind. Their thoughts
manifest themselves as instincts.
>Let us live in the transient moment. Let us worship what is beautiful
>on the outside with no thought as to what is on the inside. The box
>is empty, but the wrapping is so wonderful! A problem is only a
>problem when you think about it; let us empty our heads and *pretend*
>that the world is at rights, for we want no responsibility to make the
>world a better place.
Yet, this notion that is denounced offhand is simply the exploration of the
Dragon archetype, of the unconcious influence. This is Jung's advice. He
was convinced of the benefit of the active imagination, and of play, in the
well being of people.
Wyrm.
--
Wyrm: http://www.wyrm.demon.co.uk/
DC.D f++ s-- h++ Cfire a+++++ $+ (m) d+++
WL++ Fr++++ L700f BF e+++ g-- i+! U+++
If you fight too long against Dragons,
you become a Dragon yourself.
Nietzsche.
Odetta
> "We are the music makers,
> and we are the dreamers of dreams."
You know, I think this sums it up more than any long and lenghty
discussion. These are our dreams, we play the tunes and dance to our
own drums. That in no way makes your music and dreams (which I read as
actions and beliefs) wrong, but it doesn't make ours less valid either.
Lady Odetta - "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest
man"
Ali
[fwded for Targaff :-) ]
>On 17 Jun 1997 19:06:28 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
>wrote:
>
>This is pretty cool, so I'm definitely not going to yell at your or
>call you names.
Does that mean that that's your normal response to things you don't agree with?
:)
Anyway, I'm not gonna follow that line any further, cos I liked the reply post
myself, though it was a bit *too* deep for 1pm on a Wednesday afternoon sat in
an office... ah well, I'll try to put some input in, anyway.
>So if you want to find the truth of dragons, don't say "dragons are
>good because Oriental dragons were good and we can now ignore two
>millennia of western history". That makes no sense. Instead, ask
>yourself what the common threads between the eastern and western
>dragon are. I'm sure the first one you come across is Power. Yet in
>neither does Happiness occur.
So why would dragons wield their Power, whether to good or evil, if it didn't
give them a feeling of some sort? Maybe not happiness... satisfaction,
perhaps? Later you wrote:
>Dragons don't think the way you do. They don't think at all. They simply
>are. And they ARE with a purpose.
If dragons didn't think, they'd be no better than animals... worse, since
animals have limited intelligence (the fish doesn't eat a food type it got
"hooked" on *coff* in a hurry afterwards). I can't shake the idea that dragons
would have to have feelings to drive their actions, even if they're just primal
instincts. And if they have feelings, and act upon them, they would have to
think to be able to control their consequent actions. "I think, therefore I
am" is a centrally human ideal, but equally applicable to dragons, IMO. If
they ARE, then surely they have to think. And if they think, then they can
sense the consequences of their actions as well, know how they made them feel.
And if the aforementioned Power made them feel good... Happiness? :|
The other issue seems to be differentiating between archtypes and stereotypes.
The archetype of the leprechaun, for example; they had the same *basic*
personality, but that *basic* personality, the kernel of their character, would
be vastly influenced by it's surroundings, both environmental and social (of
course, you could argue that with faerie, environment and society are moot
points...). That would mean that the leprechaun wouldn't be the same as an
archetype, nor the same as the stereotype, unless it's surroundings made it so.
Leprechauns are always portrayed as short, dumpy, wearing green clothes,
smoking a pipe, and talking Irish, with a pot o' gold in their pocket. Is that
the archetype, or the stereotype? I'd strike for the latter, myself.
I didn't really follow the association between dragons and all other types of
faerie which Greff put forward... so I'll leave that alone now, beyond that I
didn't feel the allegoric comparison with machines (i.e. a hammer) was
particularly good due to the inanimaty of a hammer and the animaty of dragons;
hammers have functions, dragons have personalities. The latter is far far
wider than the former, surely?
>>Jung took this conception, and turned it upside down; he put the
>>dragons inside us and made them refer not to the physical world, but
>>to the strange landscape of humanity's inner nature. This is an
>>interesting idea; I don't think many folks here find it so compelling
>>that they'd accept Jung's archetype theory as the sum total of what
>>dragons are, but it is interesting.
>Where do you think the concept of dragons came from in the first
>place? Nowhere? Magic? Fantasy? Where does fantasy come from?
>Where do all ideas come from?
>From inside, as you said... but this in turn means that the concept of dragons
is down to the individual's perception of it, since it's from their psyche.
It's the same as with the hero and anti-hero, it depends whose opinion you
agree with as to which is which.
>>Rather than lay back and experience dreams which our subconscious
>>hands to us, we choose to direct, to inspire, and in this slightly
>>roundabout way, to live them.
>Haha! Yes, fie upon my subconscious.
<snip>
>Fie upon what my soul tells me.
Isn't the perception, definition, and idea/ideal of what a dragon is exactly
*what* your shoul/subconscious is telling you? After all, it comes from
inside...
----- (split off section cos the next bit is a bit... round the houses :> )
>Let us live in the transient moment. Let us worship what is beautiful on the
>outside with no thought as to what is on the inside. The box is empty, but
>the wrapping is so wonderful! A problem is only a problem when you think
>about it; let us empty our heads and *pretend* that the world is at rights,
>for we want no responsibility to make the world a better place.
It's the same for any form of escapism (well, sometimes the exact opposite, but
I'll get to that in a mo). Firstly, why think about problems *all* the time?
That way you just drive yourself into the ground... so only think about it when
you have to and when you want to, and outside that, hold and enjoy the world,
your transient moment - whatever! - for what it is, wrapping with no substance.
The extreme to this is, of course, addiction... it looks wonderful from the
inside, but when you step outside to look at the cover, it isn't so wonderful.
So you have a good point. Drug addiction is, I imagine, better from the inside
because while you know it's bad, you can just forget about it on the next
artificial high (no I don't take anything, in case anyone was wondering ;).
The addiction I have (IRC, for my sins) is as bad since it's a complete
regression from the real world into one where the only thing you have to worry
about is netsplits and lamers. Transient moments should *only* be that;
moments, not lifetimes... otherwise they turn sour (message: all things in
moderation :).
But that doesn't mean you *shouldn't* enjoy them.
Targaff, who still thinks that archtypes, as a type, have to be typical,
[typical, adj. of or pertaining to a type <-- archetype = a type ;) ], but
hey...
erin...@nwlink.com
In article <5o6n7k$r...@raven.cc.ukans.edu>,
ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel) wrote:
> "We are the music makers,
> and we are the dreamers of dreams."
> Either way, the point of a.f.d. is that we *are* the dragons. We're
> on about what dragons would do if they thought the way we do. And
> rather than take a prefabricated conception of dragonhood and swallow
> it whole (even if it is the product of a respected psychoanalyst, or
> of the deep roots of our culture), we choose to map it out ourselves,
> and to make our own worldview.
> hands to us, we choose to direct, to inspire, and in this slightly
> roundabout way, to live them.
> (I forget where Willy Wonka got the quote; I think it's Shakespeare
> but offhand I couldn't say for sure.)
"Wow! Wonderfully put, once again, Greff." <grin> *plaidhuggles* "Even
now, I'm listening to Baxil's Christmas present to myself and Erin--the
very first song, _Brother of Mine,_ starts with the lines "In the big
dream, we are heroes, we are dreamers of the big dreams." Rasha has to
stop for a moment, listening to the song, almost overcome with emotion.
"Erin and I have grown together, and grown in our own seperate ways--in
many respects, we've grown because of each other. Erin respects and
loves her dreams, and takes an active participation in her own spiritual
life; I've always known my dreams are true, and I *am* an active
participant in Erin's spiritual life! We're both better creatures, for
our experiences together. And we're both better creatures for our
experiences here, with our friends and family, in the
Dominance/Alfandra/Wang Tootle. I've said it before, and I'll say it
again--this is my home!"
-- Rasha, Very Proud Of Her Home, And Her Fellow Dragons
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~*~ Erin Lynn & Rasha <erin...@nwlink.com>
_77_ ~* ____________________
</ <O\___% V/___________________> We carry our homes within us,
</ @\ | __________________> which enables us to fly.
</ (_______/ \ ________________> --John Cage
<| / _____/________________>
<| | </ \> If you really want to impress people
XYXY </ / \> with your computer literacy, add the
| \_/ / |> words "dot com" to the end of everything,
\ __| | |> dot com.
\ |____/ | | |>
\ | | | |> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
\_/ / \___ \ \> Harshanna Clan of Winsgsbreath Lair
\ / | \ \> Adopted Daugter of Karrie and Naz
/ / | /\ \> DC.D /\ f++ s+ h++ C:R $+ a m
/ / | / \ \>_______/ / d+++ WL++* ENFP CDC
__/ / __| | \___________/SDS e+++ Fr^+ l- B:fire g--
<_____> <_____> Guaranteed 76% Dragon Pure!!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Greffindel
[ Greffindel's note: some extremely minor reformatting has been done
to make it easier to see who's saying what; apologies for any
inconvenience. ]
Ali (Alison....@durham.ac.uk) emitted:
: [fwded for Targaff :-) ]
(Sinder says)
: >On 17 Jun 1997 19:06:28 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
: >wrote:
: >
: >This is pretty cool, so I'm definitely not going to yell at your or
: >call you names.
Why thank you!
: >So if you want to find the truth of dragons, don't say "dragons are
: >good because Oriental dragons were good and we can now ignore two
: >millennia of western history". That makes no sense. Instead, ask
: >yourself what the common threads between the eastern and western
: >dragon are. I'm sure the first one you come across is Power. Yet in
: >neither does Happiness occur.
I don't think it's so much about ignoring western dragon mythos as
about deliberately looking at it from the other direction. The mythos
presents only one (hero conquering dragon). Depending on which corner
of western culture one peeks into, the dragon may come off as a
mindless, unreasoning beast, a cunning adversary, or perhaps
somewhere in between. Some of the stories cast the dragon as
a being who deliberately wishes to sow misery among humans, some as a
being with intentions and goals of its own who doesn't mind causing
misery among humans to achieve them, and some as just an animal
whose eating/sleeping/whatever happen to cause incidental damage to
humans.
For many of us, the question is what does all of this look like from
the dragon side-- if dragons had a mythos of their own, what would it
be like? What kind of roles would the humans play in them? It's not
so much a rejection of western tradition as (if you'll forgive the
term) jazzing on it. a.f.d. is largely (not purely, of course) about
the offbeats of the historical song.
: So why would dragons wield their Power, whether to good or evil, if it didn't
: give them a feeling of some sort? Maybe not happiness... satisfaction,
: perhaps? Later you wrote:
: >Dragons don't think the way you do. They don't think at all. They simply
: >are. And they ARE with a purpose.
Fair statement; equally fair, I think, is a similar view of humanity.
I ask whether modern humanity needs a 'monster' so badly that
tinkering around with that monster is a mortal crime against it?
: If dragons didn't think, they'd be no better than animals... worse, since
: animals have limited intelligence (the fish doesn't eat a food type it got
Some days it's terribly difficult not to be equlaly cynical about
humans. Try placing even a simple order at McDonald's, for example.
: "hooked" on *coff* in a hurry afterwards). I can't shake the idea
: that dragons would have to have feelings to drive their actions,
: even if they're just primal instincts. And if they have feelings,
: and act upon them, they would have to think to be able to control
: their consequent actions. "I think, therefore I am" is a centrally
: human ideal, but equally applicable to dragons, IMO. If they ARE,
: then surely they have to think. And if they think, then they can
: sense the consequences of their actions as well, know how they made
: them feel. And if the aforementioned Power made them feel good...
: Happiness? :|
[.. interesting stuff snipped ..]
: Leprechauns are always portrayed as short, dumpy, wearing green clothes,
: smoking a pipe, and talking Irish, with a pot o' gold in their
: pocket. Is that
: the archetype, or the stereotype? I'd strike for the latter, myself.
: I didn't really follow the association between dragons and all other types of
: faerie which Greff put forward... so I'll leave that alone now, beyond that I
: didn't feel the allegoric comparison with machines (i.e. a hammer) was
: particularly good due to the inanimaty of a hammer and the animaty
: of dragons;
: hammers have functions, dragons have personalities. The latter is far far
: wider than the former, surely?
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I think part of Sinder's point is and
has been that because the dragon is an imaginary monster created by
the subconscious from the ashes of the real 'monsters' (scarcity,
obnoxious neighbours, physical dangers, whatever) of human existence
so that these real-life problems can be symbolically conquered, the
dragon necessarily *doesn't* have a mind or thoughts of its own,
*doesn't* think, feel, or throw food, etc. (I hope I'm not
misrepresenting the argument here).
A lot of us are using the word and the physiognomy of 'dragon' in a
very different way; we use the power of the dragon and the appeal of
its form (perhaps just a *teeny* *tiny* bit phallic?) to "be" (in the
sense that acting in this electronic arena is being) what we would all
like to be-- which for most of us is "happy". We use the power of the
dragon symbolically to conquer the problems of 'real life'. It might
be viewed as precisely the same archetype structure that Jung
discussed, except that the Hero has scales, wings, claws, or whatever,
and the Monster is some other kind of beast (perhaps clad in armour
and mounted on horseback, or maybe looking like something else.. it
isn't terribly important...).
: >>Jung took this conception, and turned it upside down; he put the
: >>dragons inside us and made them refer not to the physical world, but
: >>to the strange landscape of humanity's inner nature. This is an
: >>interesting idea; I don't think many folks here find it so compelling
: >>that they'd accept Jung's archetype theory as the sum total of what
: >>dragons are, but it is interesting.
: >Where do you think the concept of dragons came from in the first
: >place? Nowhere? Magic? Fantasy? Where does fantasy come from?
: >Where do all ideas come from?
From (or at least through) within, obviously. But Coming from "within"
and being About "within" aren't necessarily the same thing, which is
what I was on about.
: >From inside, as you said... but this in turn means that the concept
: >of dragons...
: is down to the individual's perception of it, since it's from their psyche.
: It's the same as with the hero and anti-hero, it depends whose opinion you
: agree with as to which is which.
: >>Rather than lay back and experience dreams which our subconscious
: >>hands to us, we choose to direct, to inspire, and in this slightly
: >>roundabout way, to live them.
: >Haha! Yes, fie upon my subconscious.
: <snip>
: >Fie upon what my soul tells me.
: Isn't the perception, definition, and idea/ideal of what a dragon is exactly
: *what* your shoul/subconscious is telling you? After all, it comes from
: inside...
: ----- (split off section cos the next bit is a bit... round the houses :> )
: >Let us live in the transient moment. Let us worship what is
: >beautiful on the outside with no thought as to what is on the
: >inside. The box is empty, but the wrapping is so wonderful!
Oh, but it's not a question of worship! It's about putting ourselves
(in some sense-- and each individula on the group has a slightly
different sense in this) in a wrapping to eliminate from the start the
issue of wrappings.
Lots of the little quirks aobut this place (the fact that creatures
ranging in size from half an inch to half a mile converse quite
happily and even trade pies; the fact that folks here spill, splut,
or even land on each other with a loving impunity, etc.) are deep
symbolic assertions that the external packaging is not what we're
about, and that we positively refuse to make that the issue.
: >A problem is only a problem when you think
: >about it; let us empty our heads and *pretend* that the world is at rights,
: >for we want no responsibility to make the world a better place.
I had not really noticed before, but there is a touch of poetry in
you, Sinder! I still don't agree with the position, but I must admit
the passion of this paragraph made me stop and reread it a few times.
But still, I maintain that a.f.d.-style escapism is not about ducking
away from the real world. It's about exploring, nurturing,
experimenting with, and cultivating the perspective on life, the
feelings toward others great and small, and the philosophical
attitudes which we feel are essential to making the RL world better.
A.F.D. is a community dedicated to many things, and one of the biggest
thigns we are dedicated to is living together happily. All of us,
naturally, have plenty of conflict, dissension, hostility, etc. to
cope with in RL; there's no shortage of those things in the human
world. The 'artificial' community of afd is a laboratory where we can
set these distractions aside for a moment and concentrate on the
positive qualities which (for better or worse) we wish to bring with
us and infuse into our RL worlds.
The point is not to confine one's mind to transient moments at all--
it is to find whatever gold there may be in each transient moment and
apply that to life generally.
[ .. ]
: about is netsplits and lamers. Transient moments should *only* be that;
: moments, not lifetimes... otherwise they turn sour (message: all things in
: moderation :).
: But that doesn't mean you *shouldn't* enjoy them.
: Targaff, who still thinks that archtypes, as a type, have to be typical,
: [typical, adj. of or pertaining to a type <-- archetype = a type ;) ], but
: hey...
--Greffindel the Plaid
/\/ \/ \/\
/ ( O O ) \ Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
/ */\_/\_/\__\_ --G. K. Chesterton
/ *( o \
|*\ --v-v-v-v | It would be nice if we could define intelligence in some
\*\==\ other way than "that which gets the same meaning out of a
\*\==\ sequence of symbols as we do." --Douglas Hofstadter
.sig |*|==|
V2.0 |*|==| Would it save you any trouble if I just went mad now?
|*|==| --Arthur Dent
Greffindel
Odetta (oren...@innocent.com) emitted:
: > "We are the music makers,
: > and we are the dreamers of dreams."
: You know, I think this sums it up more than any long and lenghty
: discussion. These are our dreams, we play the tunes and dance to our
: own drums. That in no way makes your music and dreams (which I read as
: actions and beliefs) wrong, but it doesn't make ours less valid either.
(thanks! *huggles*)
: Lady Odetta - "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest
: man"
--Greffindel the Plaid-- Amen to that!
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>That would make a lot of sense, if not for the fact that the result of
>your endeavors is a mass of silliness and nonsense that has no
>historical or psychological basis whatsoever.
So the jester, and the fool, aren't historical figures representing
silliness. The Morris Dancers all have a fool who expresses himself through
what appears to be silliness. However, if you look closer you begin to see
method in the madness. I do believe Sinder has looked at this group on the
surface and made up his mind without looking any further.
>Yes! and no. Yes in that humanity needs its monsters. But it
>doesn't have to go out and look for them, they're already there. In
>fact, they're right inside you. You have the capacity to be a monster
>or a saint, and the free will to choose which.
Quite true. However that free will is also influenced by the social
factors, such as community, that you have been brought up in.
>Let's argue for a moment that dragons represent the evil tendencies
>that you harbor inside yourself. Your flashes of anger, your will to
>power, your destructive side. Now, what effects do you think you're
>having on yourself, and others who share the dragon archetype (as all
>people do), by trivializing your inner evil?
However, if Dragons do not represent evil tendencies, Sinder's argument is
meaningless. Look at the ancient myths that include Dragons, don't just
look at the Christian images which have been perverted by the early
christian motivations of power and greed. There is hardly any concepts of
evil anywhere in ancient mythology, to the early civillisations, things
just happened.
>I agree with what you're saying in spirit, and if I saw people doing
>just that in a realistic, healthy fashion, I'd be impressed. But
>that's not what I see.
What is a healthy or realistic fashion, with respect to Dragons. Does this
mean the stereotypes of the christians? I would think that Sinder's notion
of healthy and realistic really means the image of a Dragon that Sinder has
decided is the only true image. Now that is fair enough, each to their own,
however calling all other images false is exactly what the Christians did
of old, and look at the trouble they encountered!
>What I do see is a bunch of people being brainlessly gleeful, doing
>things that no self-respecting living being of ANY kind would do, LET
>ALONE a dragon. I see women cheating on their husbands. I see little
>girls trying to actualize fantasies that they don't understand. I see
>dirty old men taking advantage of people who aren't equipped to defend
>themselves. I see a mass of people whose grip on reality is so
>tentative that they have to unite as one in defiance of all reason to
>cast out any influence that might disrupt the feeble balance.
Sinder. What you see is a reflection of yourself. Your inability to accept
the fantasies that are imagined here, your reluctance to let go and let
your imagination take you where it will. This is the beauty of this
newsgroup. The Active Imagination can be set free in a safe environment.
This is recognised by all modern psychologists as a very healthy exercise.
>This doesn't look like people using power to me. It looks like people
>who are afraid of any power they might already have, and are willing
>to give it away wholesale in preference for an absence of legitimate
>suffering.
Dragons aren't power. How many more times do I have to point this out.
Also, if you look closely at the newsgroup, you'll find people confortable
with the idea of interacting with others at the same level.
>I can't believe that whoever wrote that is trying to imply that the
>nonsense that happens in this group is somehow associated with a
>healthy subconscious. Infidelity? Escapism? Denial? No, denial is
>NOT a river in Egypt.
Escapism is fantasy, which is the Active Imagination. Infidelity? That's a
physical thing - I think you're trying to over dramatise your opinions.
Denial? Denial of what? Reality? When the Active Imagination is left to
roam free there is no reality.
>>Oh, but it's not a question of worship! It's about putting ourselves
>>(in some sense-- and each individula on the group has a slightly
>>different sense in this) in a wrapping to eliminate from the start the
>>issue of wrappings.
>That is complete nonsense. That's like saying that you kill people
>now to avoid having to decide to kill people later.
Bad metaphor. However the previous comment was equally awful. The
exhaltation is not of what is on the outside at all. It is what is inside
the mind, in the subconcious, in the imagination of everyone.
It's about putting oneself in a setting that one feels comfortable with
from which one can develop. Essentially, the safe environment that
psychologists advocate.
>>The 'artificial' community of afd is a laboratory where we can
>>set these distractions aside for a moment and concentrate on the
>>positive qualities which (for better or worse) we wish to bring with
>>us and infuse into our RL worlds.
>Hurrah! That's a wonderful sentiment, and if that's all there was to
>it, I would wish you the best.
>Unfortunately, nothing is composed of simple parts. It is not
>possible to wash away the evil in the world with overwhelming
>happiness. Life is a balancing act, and you must have the harsh with
>the soft.
Everything is made up of simple parts if one breaks it down far enough.
>Bringing more happiness into your life, I agree with. However, you
>are using the only thing inside you capable of balancing out the
>overwhelming giddy happiness that has been a result of that endeavor.
>You are throwing out temperance and replacing it with blindness.
At last, we're getting closer to Sinder's view of the Dragon. However,
I'm not sure that the Dragon is the balance to happiness. In fact, I don't
even believe that the Dragon is that important in the psyche of the human.
It has only been associated with evil since Christian times in an attempt
to repress the pagan religions (the more people followed christianity, the
more power and wealth the priests gained). Previous to that, only the
Chinese really developed the Dragon image. There are lots of Dragons in
ancient history, but nowhere near as many as there should be if the Dragon
is to be thought of as an archetype of the whole human race. One only has
to compare it with the multitude of Hero myths and tales.
WalksFar
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.970625...@frtk-campus-gw.mipt.ru>,
kir...@NOSPAM.rt.mipt.ru says...
>
>On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Sinder wrote:
>
>>No, the point is not valid at all. Oriental dragons are not flippant.
>>They are not happy. They do not EVER throw pies. EVER.
>
>I'm not oriental dragon, nor I am Western or Eastern type. I am just
>typical Pernese. Can I be happy, and throw some pies? PLEEEEEASE? At least
>ONCE??
>
>Kirath
>DC.D f+ s+ h-- Cb a- $- d++ WL++* Fr- L67t23 Bfire e? i-
>(Email is wrong, remove something to reply me)
>--------
>Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
>--- Douglas Adams.
>
WalksFar stands tall over Kirath and places his hand upon his head.
"Thou need not his permission to have fun or be thyself. Thou only need look
to what is within. go forth and splut, My Child ..."
WalksFar, who has thrown his share of pies ...
CyberTiger
Greffindel wrote:
>
> Sinder (sinder...@olywa.net) emitted:
> : On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:03:53 GMT, dy...@verinet.com (Dymus) wrote:
> : >sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>
> : Oh my goodness! I made a spelling error! Should I change my alias
> : and attack the group under a different guise now?
Hmm... Methinks Sinder made a Freudian (Yes, there are more
psychiatrists/psychologists than Jung) slip there. "attack the
group"? That's not what you claim to be here for. (If you're
going to psychoanalize us via our posts, don't be supprised
about the 'favor' being returned)
> Chum, when you snipe at somebody for saying 'anydragon' instead of
> 'anybody', when you whine at people for failing to spell your name
> correctly... You've earned every spelling or grammar flame you get.
But just because he did it is a rather silly reason for others to
do it, although the post to which he gave that reply wasn't
criticizing him, just asking for verification, given the general
inanities of spell checkers or late-night typing.
> --Greffindel the Plaid
>
> /\/ \/ \/\
> / ( O O ) \ Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
> / */\_/\_/\__\_ --G. K. Chesterton
> / *( o \
> |*\ --v-v-v-v |When you hear somebody declare that violence and brutality
> \*\==\ are important, vital parts to life and that we need to keep them
> \*\==\ around, you're hearing someone make excuses for him/herself.
> .sig |*|==|
> V2.0 |*|==| Would it save you any trouble if I just went mad now?
> |*|==| --Arthur Dent
CyberTiger ^..^
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>>>There is a time to play, and a time to kill. You people seem to think
>>>that it is always time to play. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be
>>>playing with an image as powerful as the dragon is. I pity you.
>>The time to play is the 30 minutes or so spent on the newsgroup. That is
>>not 'always'. For me, it is only during the week. At weekends I have other
>>things to go and play with - like my motorcycle.
>What's your point?
Eh? It's quite obvious really. I'm saying that it is not always time to
play. I'm also stating that there are many other things that motivate us,
not just Dragons.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm) wrote:
>>sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>>>your endeavors is a mass of silliness and nonsense that has no
>>>historical or psychological basis whatsoever.
>>So the jester, and the fool, aren't historical figures representing
>>silliness.
>There were no jester dragons, or fool dragons, in history.
Maybe not, but there is a historical basis for silliness, contrary to your
original statement. The purpose of the silliness was also very important in
the May Day celebrations amongst others. Some of the silliness (not I said
some) on this newsgroup can be identified with that.
>>>Yes! and no. Yes in that humanity needs its monsters. But it
>>>doesn't have to go out and look for them, they're already there. In
>>>fact, they're right inside you. You have the capacity to be a monster
>>>or a saint, and the free will to choose which.
>>Quite true. However that free will is also influenced by the social
>>factors, such as community, that you have been brought up in.
>What's your point?
My point is that one man's monster is another man's saint. One image can be
taken in different ways depending on social pressures. This is the same
with the Dragon archetype, hence the variety of Dragons one sees.
>That's why I said, "let's argue for a moment..." Look at the quoted
>text. It was for the sake of argument. If the only thing that you
>can argue is that my premise isn't worth arguing, then stop arguing.
>It would be very nice for you to shut up for a while.
However, you elsewhere state that Dragons do not represent evil. Let me
also come out with a hypothetical argument.
Let's argue for a moment that Dragons represent the
>Are you responding to me or posing for the whole group? You seem to
>have a fixation with christians. If your posts don't start making
>sense again, I'm going to killfile you again.
I am stating an argument for the benefit of all. I don't have a fixation
with anything, however the christians do play a large part in the
development of the Dragon image thus you would expect them to crop up quite
often in my arguments.
>>Dragons aren't power. How many more times do I have to point this out.
>>Also, if you look closely at the newsgroup, you'll find people confortable
>>with the idea of interacting with others at the same level.
>You've made absolutely no case that dragons might represent anything
>other than power.
I have though. I have shown that the early Dragons were guardian figures.
guardians of knowledge, guardians of life. I have also shown that they were
identified with the sea and water.
These images do have power, but they don't represent it. Much in the same
way that the various heroes and gods of early mythology had power but did
not represent it.
In the tale of Tiamat and Marduk, who represented power? They couldn't all
have represented power. Marduk is the closest to representing power as he
tames the mushussu to be his guardian, and he defeats Tiamat. It is not the
Dragon.
>>>I can't believe that whoever wrote that is trying to imply that the
>>>nonsense that happens in this group is somehow associated with a
>>>healthy subconscious. Infidelity? Escapism? Denial? No, denial is
>>>NOT a river in Egypt.
>>Escapism is fantasy, which is the Active Imagination.
>Fantasy is fantasy. Escapism is escapism. That's why we have two
>different words for them.
We do have several words in English that all mean basically the same.
However, fantasy is a form of escapism. 'What's your point?' My point is
that this newsgroup allows fantasies to be acted out, i.e. allows the
Active Imagination to take over, in a safe environment. All that you see as
infidelity, escapism, and denial (which I know is not a river in Egypt) is
basically the Active Imagination of the participants in this newsgroup.
What you might ask - and something I am unsure of - is whether the shared
fantasies and shared Active Imaginations might be detrimental to some
degree or whether they provide a collective safety net for everyone's
fantasies.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm) wrote:
>>Yet not all influences that the unconcious casts are beneficial.
>No, you are wrong. Everything from the unconscious can be used to a
>greater good.
Ah. Now you are using the word 'can'. If it 'can' be used for a greater
good, then it 'can' be used for a greater evil. I stand by my principle.
>>>No, the point is not valid at all. Oriental dragons are not flippant.
>>>They are not happy. They do not EVER throw pies. EVER.
>>However, they do not represent evil either. They defy both sides of this
>>argument.
>I never, ever said that a dragon should be evil. You just made that
>up. I said that dragons should not be incurably happy. Please
>address the point.
You did I'm afraid, in another thread. However we both seem to agree that
Dragons are not evil, and I presume we also agree that they are not good
either. The happiness concept is a by-product of early Dragon images rather
than a direct identification. However my argument is not being addressed
here either.
>>I deny it. Dragons are not images of power. Mythological Dragons have no
>>connection with power whatsoever. It is only the relatively recent
>>interpretation based on the christian view that identifies the Dragon with
>>Power. The Celts symbolised the Dragon with the various races. The Greeks
>>symbolised the Dragon with the Guardian image.
>Hahaha! Like a particular race is going to choose a weak dragon to
>symbolize it? Like a Guardian doesn't have power? Get a clue! Every
>historical example of dragons that you can come up with wields power.
This is my original point. It has innate power, as most things in the
mythologies had innate power. However it did not represent power itself, it
represented other aspects. If you want a true power figure then you have to
look more to the hero.
>The more I find out about you, the more I think that I shouldn't waste
>my time on finger-pointers.
Another bizarre statement.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>That's why I said, "let's argue for a moment..." Look at the quoted
>text. It was for the sake of argument. If the only thing that you
>can argue is that my premise isn't worth arguing, then stop arguing.
>It would be very nice for you to shut up for a while.
My last post apparently got shunted at this point. Oh well.
What I tried to post was:
Let us argue for the moment that the Dragon represents one's inner joy.
Then it could be said that all this 'silliness' which is observed is a
celebration of that and is perfectly normal and healthy.
However Dragons don't represent inner joy, and don't represent evil.
Danae Fesler
In article <33bcad81...@news.olywa.net>, sinder...@olywa.net
says...
> think the concept of having an on-line "mate" that is not the same
> person as your real life partner is dangerously close to cheating. I
> wouldn't want my significant other to do it to me, and I wouldn't
> disrespect her by doing it to her.
"It is only cheating if you are doing something you should feel guilty
about. My human half has been married for 5 years and I have been mated
here since December. I talked to my husband about it and my mate talked
about it with his Girlfriend before we were mated.
We took in to account thier feelings on the matter and did not go
into this lightly. We love and care for each other very much. That does
not mean we are cheating on our respective human sided relationships.
> >When people come in and decide to be nasty, it poisons
> >both. We let the rest of the newsgroups maintain the atmosphere they
> >prefer, but here, we like things friendly, sincere, well-meant, and
> >free of ad-hominem attacks. That's not because of the place being
> >about dragons-- rather, it's simply the way we prefer to live.
> :
> All things must come to an end.
"Do you mean to be the one who brings our happiness to an end? What
should it matter to you how we live our lives? Is it you mission in life
to destroy what others enjoy? If so why?"
> >Right. Many of us experience an abundance of harsh in RL and a
> >shortage of soft, which is why we do what we do here. If you are
> >experiencing an excess of soft in your life, Sinder, that's fine. I
> >wish you would go somewhere else if you're looking for more
> >harshness-- you'll find what you want, and we'll keep on finding what
> >*we* want.
> :
> If there isn't enough soft in your life, maybe you should do something
> about it OTHER THAN running away from it.
"Then why are you here? What is the intenet and any newsgroup for other
than comminication and to quote you Escape? What about when a person
goes to a baseball game or a football game or the Theater isn't that a
way to escape as well? It seems like you are saying that everything we do
is an escape? Some of us do get more out of the newsgroup than escape.
> >Everyone here is capable of balancing out silliness, and does so
> >perfectly well.
> :
> That's not my observation. You lack supporting evidence.
"So do you, you do not know the people behind the dragons and other
creatures here so you can not make an informed opinion without actually
meeting us and seeing the way we live and who we are. Besides having a
virtual foodfight is a lot cleaner:)"
> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >we've disappointed you.
> :
> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
"Why should we turn this group into something it was never ment to be
just to make you happy? If you want to see all the blood fire and
ripping flesh why don't you create your own newsgroup and moderate it
yourself make sure that you want happens there, Just don't try and force
others to do what you want here!
Gilraen Astar
Dymus the Daring's Mate
Antarius' sister
Adopted sister to Many:)
Rasha
Sinder wrote:
> (B) I believe that the position of this group is already
> well-understood. What I am trying to establish is that the position
> of this group is unhealthy in the extreme. That is why I am trying to
> reach a consensus on the true nature of the dragon.
So, by engaging in circular logic, pointless rhetoric, endless
sematicism, and insults veiled or obvious, you are trying to help us
"reach a consensus"--meaning your opinion--on the "true nature of the
dragon," which will then save us from the terrible emotional damage
we're doing to ourselves?
Hah! How grandiose!
Oh, by the way--I was throwing your words back in your face. Did you
notice that?
-- Erin of Amberhaven
Rasha
Sinder wrote:
> The things you say benefit everybody? How grandiose!
> :
And you "only want to save the children?" How grandiose!
> The SEA itself is a symbol of power, and eternity! Are you INCAPABLE
> of association?
> :
Actually, the SEA is the SEA, not a symbol. Our image of the sea is a
symbol. And that symbol can mean anything we want it to. However, the
sea remains what it is--a very large body of salty water.
-- Erin of Amberhaven, Amusing Herself
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
>playing [make-believe].
The Emperors in China are Dragons.
The Pharoahs were Gods.
The Celtic Shamen were wolves or birds.
Witches were thought of as all sorts of creatures (including wolves).
People still believe in God (or Gods).
It is only your 20th century mentality that is preventing the leap of
imagination to identifying people with Dragons, or other animals
(supernatural or not).
Wyrm - besides, I know I'm a Dragon.
Wyrm
Greetings.
p...@iafrica.com spake thus:
>Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
>> Are you responding to me or posing for the whole group? You seem to
>> have a fixation with christians. If your posts don't start making
>> sense again, I'm going to killfile you again.
>"Hey Wyrm, you must be getting raw from all this killfiling that you are being
>exposed to."
Idle threats are like gargoyles. They look menacing enough, but don't
actually do anything in the end.
Wyrm.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>There is no historical basis for silliness in the behavior of DRAGONS.
However there is historical evidence of treating images of the same status
as Dragons in a silly manner, and often that silliness shows a greater
understanding - as in the jester and the fool.
>This is a DRAGON group. Do I have to spell it out for you?
Something you ought to be mindful of.
>Take your crap to alt.fan.jesters
Why don't you take your attitude to alt.psychology.mindmachine, they might
appreciate it there.
>>My point is that one man's monster is another man's saint. One image can be
>>taken in different ways depending on social pressures. This is the same
>>with the Dragon archetype, hence the variety of Dragons one sees.
>That defies the definition of archetype. If you simply don't believe
>that there is a such thing as an archetype, then just say so and GET
>THE HELL OUT OF THE THREAD.
It does not defy the definition of an archetype. The Hero archetype is
taken in many different ways, there are many hero images that all fit the
Hero archetype, but they are not all revered by all humanity as heroes. the
God archetype is another that is widespread but not all of humanity agree
about them. The Dragon archetype is the same, and not everyone agrees with
everyone else. My point? It's that the archetype can be present even though
the rational mind translates it into different things for different people.
I would suggest that you go away and think about your notions, and only
return when you have got them sorted out into at least some sort of
realism.
>>However, you elsewhere state that Dragons do not represent evil. Let me
>>also come out with a hypothetical argument.
>If you don't want to engage in the hypothesis that I was presenting,
>then don't respond.
Ditto.
N.B. Although you may not have seen it, I responded to your hypothesis with
an equally valid hypothesis. This should have illustrated to you that your
hypothesis was not necessarily valid and as such holds no merit for
discussion.
Oh you really are very one-sided. I bet you have trouble going out of the
house in the morning in case you meet people who don't agree with your
image of how they should be.
>>I am stating an argument for the benefit of all. I don't have a fixation
>>with anything, however the christians do play a large part in the
>>development of the Dragon image thus you would expect them to crop up quite
>>often in my arguments.
>The things you say benefit everybody? How grandiose!
When you have a public discussion, everyone benefits as they are exposed to
ideas that they might not necessarily have considered before.
You do have a power fixation!
>>I have though. I have shown that the early Dragons were guardian figures.
>>guardians of knowledge, guardians of life. I have also shown that they were
>>identified with the sea and water.
>The SEA itself is a symbol of power, and eternity! Are you INCAPABLE
>of association?
The sea is not a symbol of power. There are no ancient symbols of power.
The only power a symbol has is in the manner it is used by humankind. The
Sea is a symbol of eternity, yes, of the life-giving force, yes, but not of
power. Just because power is the prime motivation of humans today doesn't
mean that it always has been.
Are you incapable of seeing beyond your own fixations?
>>These images do have power, but they don't represent it. Much in the same
>>way that the various heroes and gods of early mythology had power but did
>>not represent it.
>Hahaha! Indeed, they represented the powers that they had.
The 'powers', or more accurately forces, they represented went along with
their symbolism. However I can see that you consider that every
mythological image represents power and nothing else. So there is no point
in your discussing it any further.
>>In the tale of Tiamat and Marduk, who represented power? They couldn't all
>>have represented power. Marduk is the closest to representing power as he
>>tames the mushussu to be his guardian, and he defeats Tiamat. It is not the
>>Dragon.
>Tiamat, the dragon, represented power. Marduk represented the hero,
>the journey of man in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.
Tiamat represented the sea and Ea represented the earth, nothing else.
Marduk represents the Hero and the triumph of man (of powerful man) over
the natural forces in all their forms and guises. The object of power
here is man - which it attains through the use of the Hero archetype. He
then shows his power again by taming one of the forces of nature (probably
fire) in the form of the mushussu which he wields as a guarding force. The
power again belongs to Marduk.
This also represents the triumph of the masculine over the matriarchal (see
Jung's interpretation of the mother dragon).
>They mean basically the same thing, but not specifically the same
>thing. I am not speaking in "basic" terms (though I should start with
>you).
Well, at least you now agree that there is a close association between
escapism and fantasy. That's good.
>>However, fantasy is a form of escapism. 'What's your point?' My point is
>>that this newsgroup allows fantasies to be acted out, i.e. allows the
>>Active Imagination to take over, in a safe environment. All that you see as
>>infidelity, escapism, and denial (which I know is not a river in Egypt) is
>>basically the Active Imagination of the participants in this newsgroup.
>Hahahaaa! Where do you hide the bottle?
Bottle? What are you on about? Have you been drinking?
>No, I wouldn't ask that ... I would insist on it! Again, my opinion
>(because you obviously missed it somewhere back there) is that it is
>detrimental. It seems that the majority opinion of the group is that
>it is a safety net. Now I have given supporting arguments for my
>opinion, while I have received none for yours (other than "just
>because").
Sorry, but if my arguments have been 'just because' then so have yours.
Is this group acting as a safety net or as a chute? Well, in actual fact I
would say that it acts as both in a sense. It depends on the participants.
For myself, it acts as neither. For some it acts as a safety net allowing
them to get their own Dragon under control. For some it will be a chute as
they fall further into psychosis. Thus one can argue any side and be
vindicated. In fact, it's probably the case that most of the arguments can
be twisted to suit either side.
Greffindel
Sinder (sinder...@olywa.net) emitted:
: On 25 Jun 1997 13:38:18 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
: wrote:
[ a bunch of stuff, which I would have responded to had I not read
down to the bottom and remembered what this, and Sinder's other posts,
are really about. ]
: >Brainlessly gleeful: yes, probably. Fun is a major thing that keeps
: >folks here.
: It also drives a lot of folks out.
There's no shortage of places not to have fun. Live and let live.
: >Women cheating on their husbands... Hmmm... I 've seen plenty of
: :
: I think the concept of having an on-line "mate" that is not the same
: person as your real life partner is dangerously close to cheating. I
: wouldn't want my significant other to do it to me, and I wouldn't
: disrespect her by doing it to her.
Me neither-- but I've got more sense than to stick my nose into
everyone else's business and pester them, because even if I were
absolutely morally correct, in practise people only get angry at the
interference rather than actually get the message.
: >Dirty old men and young girls? I'm sorry, but I think you're gravely
: >mistaken. There are middle-aged men here, and there are young girls.
: That, as you pointed out, is one of the "virtues" of this group. It's
: virtual. If a dirty old man wants to portray himself as a svelte,
: virile young man, he can do so. Why would he betray the truth to you?
BTW, 'innocent until proven guilty' are a few words I've just read
somewhere. Ring a bell?
My point, actually, is that I *don't* see a lot of scoring going on
here, nor do I see many people trying to look sexy. Sure, it could
happen, but it could happen anywhere; nothing we do changes that apart
from creating an atmosphere that encourages sincerity and friendship
rather than a flesh arena. It works as well or better than anything
else.
Of course, every once in a while, someone malicious and small comes
around and tries to pretend to be an intellectual. It never works for
long.
: By the way, I consider a middle-aged man trying to score with a
: teenage girl to be a dirty old man. If not in years, DEFINITELY in
: attitude.
Of course.
*** Here's the real point-- it's quick, short, and easy to miss,
* but it's a potent reminder of what Sinder's here for.
*
*[..compression..]
*: >free of ad-hominem attacks. That's not because of the place being
*: >about dragons-- rather, it's simply the way we prefer to live.
*: :
*: All things must come to an end.
*
*** There you have it.
And bringing nice things to an end is quite dear to you, it seems.
For us, you've chosen a Righteous Quest For Mental Health, apparently.
Well, thank you for reminding me of your true colours; I had almost
forgotten them.
[ .. snippage .. ]
Here's one parting shot.
: >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
: >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
: >we've disappointed you.
: :
: If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
Darn that sarcasm! You've caught me again. Guess I'll have to
surrender and turn in my brain...
--Greffindel the Plaid *PLONK*
/\/ \/ \/\
/ ( O O ) \ Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
/ */\_/\_/\__\_ --G. K. Chesterton
/ *( o \
|*\ --v-v-v-v |When you hear somebody declare that violence and brutality
\*\==\ are important, vital parts to life and that we need to keep them
\*\==\ around, you're hearing someone make excuses for him/herself.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel) wrote:
>Now we're getting somewhere. My point is, dragons were not simply
>"made up".
Yep. I'd agree with you there also.
>There is no thing that does not follow the things that
>came before. It then follows that the dragon concept came from
>somewhere, to serve a function.
Hmmm. Yep, I'd agree with that too, though with reservations as I think it
represented a function rather than served as one, but that's just pedantry.
>I believe that function is to teach
>us something about ourselves and the world around us, by way of
>parable.
That was also the view of the Rosicrucians wasn't it?
My belief is that it represents the function of the forces of nature. I.e.
it is teaching us something about the world around us and how we ought to
respect that. Similar to what you've just said.
>Now, when you take a dragon and turn it into an idiot
>pie-fighter, what are you doing with the lesson? You disrespect
>yourself by scoffing the lessons that arise from your own psyche.
You are showing that you have mastery over nature to such a degree that you
can laugh in the face of it.
By the way, I believe this is due to the recent growing arrogance of
mankind in that he believes he is the master of the planet and whatever he
does can change it on a global scale.
I argue that the Dragon is in control of the planet, i.e. nature has still
got the upper hand.
Is this a good thing or not. Well, the growing arrogance has spawned the
Green movement which is seen as beneficial. We can laugh in the face of
nature, yet we take more care of it. This, as far as I'm concerned, is for
the best.
>(A) I do not believe dragons to be the acme of destructive forces,
>just a representation of self-motivated power.
OK. I can understand that. I can see how you might come to that conclusion.
I don't agree with it. Dragons associated with the sea, with the rain, with
the winds, with the setting of the sun, with lots of other natural
phenomenon, yes.
>(B) I believe that the position of this group is already
>well-understood. What I am trying to establish is that the position
>of this group is unhealthy in the extreme. That is why I am trying to
>reach a consensus on the true nature of the dragon.
The position of this group has changed over the three years I've been
reading it. It's position constantly shifts as avenues are explored and
discarded. However, I am too interested in identifying the Nature of the
Dragon!
>>Brainlessly gleeful: yes, probably. Fun is a major thing that keeps
>>folks here.
>It also drives a lot of folks out.
That would be true on both sides though. What we should be aiming for is a
happy medium.
>I think the concept of having an on-line "mate" that is not the same
>person as your real life partner is dangerously close to cheating. I
>wouldn't want my significant other to do it to me, and I wouldn't
>disrespect her by doing it to her.
Yet most people have fantasies about others even though they are happily
married. The step towards cheating is when contact is made through other
means also. It is not necessarily disrespect either, it could be that the
person's relationship is lacking something that they find on this
newsgroup.
>>If any dirty old men have come here to prey on
>>unsuspecting young girls, they've kept it from me.
>That, as you pointed out, is one of the "virtues" of this group. It's
>virtual. If a dirty old man wants to portray himself as a svelte,
>virile young man, he can do so. Why would he betray the truth to you?
However you seem to have seen through all this and can identify the old men
and the young girls?
>By the way, I consider a middle-aged man trying to score with a
>teenage girl to be a dirty old man. If not in years, DEFINITELY in
>attitude.
That's fair enough and is reprehensible if the teenage girl (or boy for
that matter) is under 16. However, this is present in most newsgroups, and
is present outside the internet as well. It is not a product of the
newsgroup, or anything to do with the attitude of the participants.
If anything, it is a product of Western society.
>Haha! I don't think there's a respected psychologist anywhere in the
>world that would agree that escaping legitimate suffering can be good
>in any way. That's why it is called "legitimate" ... it is necessary
>for growth. When you try to escape it, you are unhealthy by
>definition.
True. I would hope that noone is trying to escape from legitimate
experiences (whether painful or not). Yet I would also say that this group
is a good way to recover and learn from the experiences.
>>Oh, please give the psychoanalysis a rest. It's not working, for one
>>thing. It's hard enough to do in RL with real personal contact and
>>detailed information about a patient's background. Trying to do it
>>over the 'net is just plain crazy.
>I can live a healthy lifestyle in real life AND on the Internet.
>There is not EVER a good time to be unhealthy.
Errm, your point is?
I can also live a healthy life, which encompases using the Internet every
so often. I don't differentiate between a healthy lifestyle on the
Internet or off it - I find it odd that you do!
>If there isn't enough soft in your life, maybe you should do something
>about it OTHER THAN running away from it.
Whether they are harsh or not, they are all valuable learning experiences.
This newsgroup is a valuable learning experience. One must be careful
though not to let it dominate ones life.
>>Everyone here is capable of balancing out silliness, and does so
>>perfectly well.
>That's not my observation. You lack supporting evidence.
Of the ones I've observed, they do. As for supporting evidence, the amount
on both sides is about the same. One has to take into account the relative
ages and experiences present on the group.
>>I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
>>the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
>>we've disappointed you.
>If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
However there are some of those around.
Sigridir
Kirath <kir...@NOSPAM.rt.mipt.ru> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.3.95.970625...@frtk-campus-gw.mipt.ru>...
> I'm not oriental dragon, nor I am Western or Eastern type. I am just
> typical Pernese. Can I be happy, and throw some pies? PLEEEEEASE? At
least
> ONCE??
>
I never noticed that Pernese dragons were particularly happy. They've
always struck me as somewhat cool and aloof, except in a mating
flight......
Sigridir
> --------
> Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
> --- Douglas Adams.
>
Or as JM Barrie would have it 'Think happy thoughts!' and a touch of
fairy-dust.
>
DarkWolf
> > No, the point is not valid at all. Oriental dragons are not flippant.
> > They are not happy. They do not EVER throw pies. EVER.
>
> references with supporting interviews from the dragons in question. I am sure
> you could find some Eastern dragons here, and we all know how very much you
> respect their honourable opinions."
>
"I can't say I've heard of Eastern dragons being giddy, but I
once heard a story of, I think it was of a pair of lesser earth dragons
that were captured by an Emperor, who were happy and played in the
Emperor's gardens, until a Celestial Guardian found and killed them, or
something similiar to that. But hey, what do I know, I'm only a typical
Western black dragon." ]:8}
--
DarkWolf the Ravager
DC.D f+ s- h++ CMKwR a $ m**
d+++ WL++* Fr-- L* BA E-- g+ i-! U-
"A dragon is just a snake that ate a scroll of fire."
Danae Fesler
In article <33B42C...@angel-mask.com>, c...@angel-mask.com says...
> "YA-AAAYYY!"
> (applause, applause, and lots of dancing about!)
*grins*
> "Thank you, Gilrean! Just what I wanted to say, but so much
> better! I lurked around here for a good long while and decided
> I wanted to join in on all the fun, but I hesitated because I
> was unsure of how I might be received -- my doubts and dreads
> were completely unfounded as it turns out.
"I have been reading these posts for awhile and this one really got to
me"
<snip of memory>
> "Sinder, was that you? If so, I'm sorry that you're so unhappy
> that you apparently feel a need to destroy other people's
> pleasures and to make them feel badly about themselves for needing
> a place to play in from time to time. But I'm not going to stop
> playing on account of you. I *need* my fun and laughter."
*applauds*
"Also well said"
"By the way I do not believe we have met" *hands Spitfire a yellow rose*
Gilraen Astar
Dymus the Daring's mate
Spitfire
Danae Fesler wrote:
> In article <33bcad81...@news.olywa.net>, sinder...@olywa.net
> > If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
> "Why should we turn this group into something it was never ment to be
> just to make you happy? If you want to see all the blood fire and
> ripping flesh why don't you create your own newsgroup and moderate it
> yourself make sure that you want happens there, Just don't try and force
> others to do what you want here!
>
> Gilraen Astar
> Dymus the Daring's Mate
> Antarius' sister
> Adopted sister to Many:)
"YA-AAAYYY!"
(applause, applause, and lots of dancing about!)
"Thank you, Gilrean! Just what I wanted to say, but so much
better! I lurked around here for a good long while and decided
I wanted to join in on all the fun, but I hesitated because I
was unsure of how I might be received -- my doubts and dreads
were completely unfounded as it turns out.
"Sinder sometimes bugs me, but then a particular childhood
memory keeps coming to the fore every time Sinder gets
particularly nasty: I was very young, 6 or 7, on a vacation
in Panama City Beach (yeah, I know), and I was having a blast
building huge elaborate sand castles, while another child
(don't know who he was) stopped digging his holes in the sand
because they kept caving in and filling with water. He got
mad, stomped around for a while, and then noticed what I was
doing. Since I didn't like going out into the surf that kept
knocking me down, I was about to invite this kid to help me
build my sand castle. He glared at me, at my sand castle,
and then swung his foot right through it, and proceeded to
stomp it flat.
"Sinder, was that you? If so, I'm sorry that you're so unhappy
that you apparently feel a need to destroy other people's
pleasures and to make them feel badly about themselves for needing
a place to play in from time to time. But I'm not going to stop
playing on account of you. I *need* my fun and laughter."
Spitfire
c...@angel-mask.com
Napoleon
> >"Sinder, was that you? If so, I'm sorry that you're so unhappy
> >that you apparently feel a need to destroy other people's
> >pleasures and to make them feel badly about themselves for needing
> >a place to play in from time to time. But I'm not going to stop
> >playing on account of you. I *need* my fun and laughter."
> If a man was walking down the street stabbing himself in the chest
> with a knife, and I felt like asking him why he was doing it, I would
> do so. If I felt like pointing out the follow of stabbing yourself in
> the chest, I would do so.
Ah, but would you still do so if that same man turned his
suicidal rage on you? What if his life was so miserable and unbearable
that he should kill you and then kill himself? You couldn't do anything
about it, and for the same reasons, you can't stop us from playing.
> If a woman was sipping away at a glass of hemlock, I would tell her
> that it was poison and she shouldn't do it. If she got upset and
> called me names, simply because I was "making fun of" the only
> beverage on the earth that made her feel good, then I certainly would
> not feel bad.
I think you're the one with a problem. If I happened to insult
someone's "intelligence" (be it sane or not), I would feel bad, because,
for starters, you don't know if it is straight hemlock, or distilled
with the poison removed, I don't know what else is in the drink, and
even though my own perception says "that's poison", the person who is
drinking it is the only one who truely knows what is in it.
> Now, I can't stop these people from hurting themselves and doing
> stupid things, but I'm sure in the hell not going to give up my right
> to express my opinions in deference to your right to be stupid.
(to everyone else BUT Sinder: $5 says he doesn't play video
games)
Napoleon
> Okay, Sinder, here's the $5 challenge for you. Take a Greyhound down to
> Oakland. Get off the bus--I know, it's in a scary part of town, but
> you're about to do something even scarier. Walk up to the first
> crackhead you see--they're pretty easy to spot--and point out to him (or
> her) that crack is a terribly addictive drug, using it is foolish, and
> he really shouldn't do it.
Dang! You wanna get him killed, don'cha?! :) BTW- All recent
messages from Napoleon, is REALLY from me, DarkWolf! I'm using my
husband's version of Netscape... <blush>
Sigridir
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<33ccba21...@news.olywa.net>...
Sinder (or perhaps Snider, which my spellchecker keeps trying to change
your name too would be more appropriate),
I've read the recent spate of posts which you have sparked and it seems to
me that the fundamental dichotomy between you and many of the listees is
that you choose to use the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious and
the dragon archetype as the only valid definition of dragon, whereas others
do not. It is tantamount to a religious fanatic claiming that their
religion is the one and only truth.
Jung's work is not fact. It is hypothesis on a grand scale. The collective
unconscious is one means of explaining certain commonalities between
cultures. Each archetype is a powerful metaphor for some aspect of the
human condition, some psychological expression. it is not meant to clearly
define what a dragon is, it uses the dragon as a representation of the
archetype. The archetype of the Terrible Mother does not define what a
terrible mother is, it uses the image of the wicked stepmother figure to
describe certain fears and dark desires. Archetypes are used in
storytelling as a cultural phenomenon partly because children are brought
up from birth with these conventional characters burnt in their psyche,
from nursery rhymes to Disney films. The collective unconscious may in fact
be a created entity transmitted by society through indoctrination.
If you choose to believe that Jung has it right, that is your choice and
your freedom. Do not expect everyone else to accept your point of view. I
am not going to argue the depths of the Jungian philosophy with you
because I have not explored them properly. The human mind is a complex
structure (if structure is the right word) and I defy anyone to state
categorically that we can understand and explain it fully, if indeed such a
thing is possible. Therefore do not claim to hold the one unassailable
moral position on what is essentially a creation of the mind.
Dragons as we know them are a creation of the mind. Even if an
extraterrestrial being (sentient or not) which was a big scaly flying thing
were found tomorrow, it would not be a dragon. We might call it a dragon,
but it would be a Myrka or whatever. We would simply be applying the label
of dragon to something, much as the label of dragon is used to name a
psychological construct defined as an archetype. Pernese dragons are
manufactured beings, created in a mind-image of the dragon. If dragons are
a creation of the mind, it could be argued that they can be anything that a
mind or group of minds chooses them to be. I do not necessarily agree with
the 'jester-dragon' concept any more than your dragon with no purpose or
sentience other than to exist. However I do not dispute its right to exist
in this landscape of the mind as any lesser or greater than my own
interpretation of the dragon.
> :
> >What you might ask - and something I am unsure of - is whether the
shared
> >fantasies and shared Active Imaginations might be detrimental to some
> >degree or whether they provide a collective safety net for everyone's
> >fantasies.
> :
> No, I wouldn't ask that ... I would insist on it! Again, my opinion
> (because you obviously missed it somewhere back there) is that it is
> detrimental. It seems that the majority opinion of the group is that
> it is a safety net. Now I have given supporting arguments for my
> opinion, while I have received none for yours (other than "just
> because").
>
In my opinion the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate 'Why
not?'
The collective fantasy is part of the collective unconscious. In fact your
dragon archetype is an expression of the collective fantasy. What is a
story, if not a collective fantasy? A daydream is an individual fantasy,
the moment it is shared with another who listens willingly and enjoys it or
interprets the theme it becomes a shared fantasy. Collective fantasy, it is
the primary method of passing information and ideas in most cultures,
especially those concepts deepest in our psyche and most necessary for
society - the definition of good and evil, the benefits of 'goodness' and
the 'punishment' of 'evil', social mores like the protection of children,
teamwork, overcoming obstacles etc. etc. It can be abused and used to
promote detrimental concepts, but the medium in itself is amoral. It is how
the medium is used that defines whether it is beneficial or detrimental.
For myself I do not see any detriment in this newsgroup.
Of course, that is only my opinion.
Sigridir
>
>
>
Spitfire
Sinder wrote:
(major snippage)
> Now, I can't stop these people from hurting themselves and doing
> stupid things, but I'm sure in the hell not going to give up my right
> to express my opinions in deference to your right to be stupid.
This is the price we pay for the Freedom of Speech.
It's a small price -- heck, it's a bargain!!
Sinder, no one has asked you to give up your rights.
Conversely, we have to right to disregard and/or
ignore what you say. Are you sure you don't want
to play, or at least broaden your horizons?
* -- Spitfire
c...@angel-mask.com
Rexalc
Napoleon wrote:
>
> > Like it or not, you are having an extra-marital affair. It just
> > doesn't happen to be sexual. And the plain fact is, marriages that
> > are forced to suffer an extramarital affair rarely, if ever, survive.
> > Even if they do, they certainly don't continue in the same manner as
> > they did before; it is always worse.
>
> No offense or anything, I'm just curious, do you happen to have
> a P.h.d or something in Psychology? ]:8)
More like a "B.S."...
Rexalc Stormcrest
DC.D f+ s+ h CP|KwW:w a++++ $--- L BI,W,Z,Rainbows e---(weather: e+++)
DarkWolf
<and so on..>
> > >degree or whether they provide a collective safety net for everyone's
> > >fantasies.
> > :
> > No, I wouldn't ask that ... I would insist on it! Again, my opinion
> > (because you obviously missed it somewhere back there) is that it is
> > detrimental. It seems that the majority opinion of the group is that
Sinder... if you were in, say... a restaurant... full of
smokers, would you "insist" on telling them how detrimental smoking is,
and "insist" on them leaving because some studies show that smoking is
unhealthy for them and you, even though there is no solid proof written
in stone that second hand smoke kills? Or would you leave and save
yourself the burden from lecturing people who will never agree with you?
Spitfire
Sinder wrote:
> Are you a total idiot? The dragons here are the ones breaking the
> rules in the first place!
Hey, that's a point for us!! Sinder has acknowledged us as DRAGONS!!
And *dragons* make their own rules. ~ sniff of disdain ~
> And any living person in this newsgroup is NOT A DRAGON.
And then the silly troll goes and contradicts himself. The poor
thing is so confuzzled.
> Therefore,
> their opinion of dragons DOES NOT APPLY unless it is SUPPORTED by a
> RATIONAL DISCOURSE.
Screaming is rational? Role-playing is fictional. Ever heard of
literary license?
> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of
> rationale that goes beyond "just because" or "because I feel like it".
Frankly, that's the only justification you'll ever get out of me.
> I feel like the majority of you are idiots, does that necessarily make
> it so?
Of course not. It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
But it is *only* your opinion, and has no weight beyond that.
So there! (Now, how's *that* for childish repartee?)
* -- Spitfire
c...@angel-mask.com
Spitfire
Sinder wrote:
> I didn't say that you had a problem with pretending to be a dragon, or
> even a problem pretending. You just have a problem.
An interesting assessment from someone who is, by the context of his
own words, unable to work or play well with others.
* -- Spitfire
c...@angel-mask.com
DarkWolf
> >: >Brainlessly gleeful: yes, probably. Fun is a major thing that keeps
> >: >folks here.
> >: It also drives a lot of folks out.
> :
> valid reason because it's converse "drives people out" is also true.
> The two negate each other, and you are stuck with an action without a
> reason.
But that isn't true althogether. Fun is what keeps us dragonkind
here, fun is what drives you mancruel away.
<blah, blah, blah>
> As if I haven't already made them angry. Like I said, I'll call
> bullshit for bullshit. And if you try to claim that this place is a
> healthy, fun place, when people like that make up the majority of its
> members, then your logic stinks.
Healthy could equate to stress relief, which we ALL need.
Fun is acting child-like when there are no consequences, real
or imagined.
I believe I speak for everyone when I say that if one person is
mated with someone here, but has an accepting boy/girlfriend (etc), then
I say, sure, let them have their fun, after all, all it is is just that.
Fun. I personally wouldn't do it, because in my eyes, it is cheating. I
won't do it, but I shouldn't try to stop them if they enjoy it. I firmly
believe in the Bible, and it says essentially "Let the one who is
perfect cast the first stone" in regards to Jesus saving the prostitute.
And as far as I'm concerned, I'm VERY FAR from being perfect, so I have
no place to judge. And if you happen to be a Christian, you also have no
place to judge us.
<blah, blah, blah>
> Who is innocent until proven guilty? What are you talking about? Why
> are you being so defensive? If you have nothing to hide, you have
> nothing to fear.
> :
> >My point, actually, is that I *don't* see a lot of scoring going on
> >here, nor do I see many people trying to look sexy. Sure, it could
> >happen, but it could happen anywhere; nothing we do changes that apart
> >from creating an atmosphere that encourages sincerity and friendship
> >rather than a flesh arena. It works as well or better than anything
> >else.
Well said!
> "Sex" and "romance" take on two different faces. Unfortunately, 14
> and 15 year-old girls aren't really equipped to discriminate the
> difference. And OF COURSE they wouldn't be posting their romance in
> public to you! Think about it.
I see neither here. Is what they do any different than two or
three children playing "house"? I see a "pretend" mommy, a pretend
"daddy", pretend "children", etc. And might I ask, how, praytell, do you
know as a fact 14/15 year old girls can't differentiate sex and romance?
I've seen some girls that age who are considerably more sexually mature
than some 25/30+ year old men that I know. You obviously don't know what
it is like to be a child.
Nat 1
> On 27 Jun 1997 10:22:00 -0700, DarkWolf
> <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> >Sinder wrote:
> >> You're not a dragon at all. You're a human with a problem.
> > If a human adult (young or not) has problems pretending (or
> >being, which ever the case may be) a dragon, then does a child have
> >problems when they play with G.I. Joes, or pretending to be Coyboys and
> >Indians, or pretending to be animals? If it's okay to pretend when a
> >person is a child, then why is it so wrong to pretend when you're an
> >adult?
> :
> I didn't say that you had a problem with pretending to be a dragon, or
> even a problem pretending. You just have a problem.
>
Now that's interesting. You fault us for not substantiating the points we
throw out (which may in fact be partially true), and then you throw out (or
up, which is more likely considering the content) a point of your own with
absolutely no substantiation whatsoever. Isn't that intriguing?
--
-Varquith Flameweaver
Resident DJ, Radio KLAH - The Dominance's First, but no longer Only, Radio
Station!
Random Radio Quotes:
"Parents sometimes talk about today's generation as if they couldn't be
blamed for creating it."
"Do you believe in love at first sight, or do I have to walk by again?"
<WARNING: CODE FOLLOWS...>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.D f+ sRL- sVR+ h CZ a- $- m d WL++* Fr-- l BF ePsi++ g- i- o>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<END WEIRD CODE BLOCK THINGY>
Dammit, Jim, I'm a dragon, not an ASCII artist!
Nat 1
-- Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<33bcad81...@news.olywa.net>...
> On 25 Jun 1997 13:38:18 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
> wrote:
> >: Let's argue for a moment that dragons represent the evil tendencies
> >: that you harbor inside yourself. Your flashes of anger, your will to
> >: power, your destructive side.
I disagree personally, but shoot.
> >: Now, what effects do you think you're
> >: having on yourself, and others who share the dragon archetype (as all
> >: people do), by trivializing your inner evil?
> >I agree that trivializing the inner evil is a bad thing. What I think
> >the crucial difference of opinion is is that most of us (for some
> >reason) are simply not talking about the inner demon when we use the
> >word or the visual image of a dragon.
Exactly! This was a discussion based on a premise, that <quote>dragons
represent the evil tendencies that you harbor inside yourself</quote>,
which is simply not true for the vast majority of users of this group - and
perhaps all, but I digress.
> >If the text of a.f.d was "evil
> >gets in a pie-fight with itself!", I would probably have to concede
> >your point.
> :
> Now we're getting somewhere. My point is, dragons were not simply
> "made up". There is no thing that does not follow the things that
> came before. It then follows that the dragon concept came from
> somewhere, to serve a function.
I agree that it came from somewhere. But does everything in the world have
to serve a function? Why are there (for example) so many different
varieties of fish of a more or less similar size and shape living in the
same part of the ocean, when a single species would serve the same function
in the food chain?
> I believe that function is to teach
> us something about ourselves and the world around us, by way of
> parable.
You are entitled to your belief. However, not everyone shares it.
> Now, when you take a dragon and turn it into an idiot
> pie-fighter, what are you doing with the lesson? You disrespect
> yourself by scoffing the lessons that arise from your own psyche.
(1) Any reason why pie-fighting is idiotic? One good reason. And if you say
"it wastes food when people in Somalia are starving", well, tell me whether
the sort of pie-fighting we engage in on this newsgroup wastes food.
(2) I think that you are approaching this discussion from the standpoint of
your own beliefs (which you are, of course, entitled to). But only if we
accept that your beliefs are CORRECT do we reach the conclusion that we
<quote> disrespect ourselves by scoffing the lessons that arise from our
own psyche.</quote> Many of those who frequent this group do not hold the
exact same beliefs that you do.
> :
> >But I think that a view of Dragon as being the acme of
> >the destructive forces within and without is (while as valid as any
> >other view of Dragon) not one that will help a person understand the
> >phenomena of this particular group very well.
> :
> (A) I do not believe dragons to be the acme of destructive forces,
> just a representation of self-motivated power.
> :
> (B) I believe that the position of this group is already
> well-understood. What I am trying to establish is that the position
> of this group is unhealthy in the extreme. That is why I am trying to
> reach a consensus on the true nature of the dragon.
> :
> >Brainlessly gleeful: yes, probably. Fun is a major thing that keeps
> >folks here.
> :
> It also drives a lot of folks out.
> :
> >Women cheating on their husbands... Hmmm... I 've seen plenty of
> >tangled on-line relationships, and confusing jumbles in the RL world;
> >but if anyone has been seriously cheating on their RL partner here,
> >(a) I'm not aware of enough details to feel convinced of it, and (b) I
> >believe it is rare, and is the fault of individuals not keeping their
> >own lives sufficiently integrated rather than this particular group;
> >it would happen anywhere socialisation was at all possible.
> :
> I think the concept of having an on-line "mate" that is not the same
> person as your real life partner is dangerously close to cheating. I
> wouldn't want my significant other to do it to me, and I wouldn't
> disrespect her by doing it to her.
I understand your viewpoint and, up to a point, I agree.
However, I would like to bring up a very important point. Three, in fact.
(1) Many of the people here are unmarried, and a large number are
unattached.
(2) Those who are married or otherwise possess a SO, largely either (i) are
unattached on-line, or (ii) are attached to the very same person online (in
their dragon personas) that they are in Real Life.
(3) For some people on this group, their dragon personality IS the real
"them", and <POETIC> the crude shell of ashes and dust they now inhabit is
merely a passing phase in the transition to a shining filigree of light.
</POETIC> I am not passing a value judgment on their viewpoint, and I
sincerely hope you will not. In this case, one might as well say that if
they are mated on-line and later acquire a significant other in Real Life
who is different from their online mate, they are actually "cheating" on
that online mate!
> :
> >Dirty old men and young girls? I'm sorry, but I think you're gravely
> >mistaken. There are middle-aged men here, and there are young girls.
> >There are also young boys and middle-aged women. For the most part,
> >we enjoy having friendly discussions or playing friendly games (mainly
> >with food, it seems). If any dirty old men have come here to prey on
> >unsuspecting young girls, they've kept it from me.
> :
> That, as you pointed out, is one of the "virtues" of this group. It's
> virtual. If a dirty old man wants to portray himself as a svelte,
> virile young man, he can do so. Why would he betray the truth to you?
> :
> By the way, I consider a middle-aged man trying to score with a
> teenage girl to be a dirty old man. If not in years, DEFINITELY in
> attitude.
So far so good. But how about a teenage boy of the same age attempting the
same with the hypothetical girl? Can you truthfully say that there is no
element of the "dirty man" (whether old or young) in that? Mental age and
physical age are two very different and disparate things.
Besides, in all the posts you have read here (and I suspect that that
number is not very large - correct me if I'm wrong), just how much actual
flirting, "pick ups", or other suchlike activity have you seen going on?
> :
> >It can be tricky, by the way, to tell the RL age of folks around here.
> >I've been fooled before, and I suspect that on occasion you may have
> >been as well. Just a thing to bear in mind, that's all.
> :
> Duh.
All too true. *chuckle*
> :
> >: tentative that they have to unite as one in defiance of all reason to
> >: cast out any influence that might disrupt the feeble balance.
> >It's not a matter of tentative grasp. What is quite fragile is
> >pleasant atmosphere (to some, anyway. You can't please everyone) of
> >*scrupulous* mutual respect and sensitivity. And that's because, as
> >I've said, both the silly games and the real discussions seem to go a
> >lot better. When people come in and decide to be nasty, it poisons
> >both. We let the rest of the newsgroups maintain the atmosphere they
> >prefer, but here, we like things friendly, sincere, well-meant, and
> >free of ad-hominem attacks. That's not because of the place being
> >about dragons-- rather, it's simply the way we prefer to live.
> :
> All things must come to an end.
True enough. But when does it end? Either (in some cases) there will be a
gradual "growing out" process, in which case this group can be taken as a
perfectly healthy stage of one's life, through which one passes for a time
and eventually leaves gently, or (in others) there will be a staying on. I
believe that it is too soon to judge the longevity of this group. Would it
be totally unreasonable to suppose that some who are here may still be here
in fifty years' time, long after the "passing phase" crowd has faded away?
New people are showing up every day, ensuring the continued vitality of the
group. I, for one, hope to commit myself to staying on and ensuring that
people feel welcome and wanted here. Which they are.
> :
> >: This doesn't look like people using power to me. It looks like people
> >: who are afraid of any power they might already have, and are willing
> >: to give it away wholesale in preference for an absence of legitimate
> >: suffering.
> >We just don't feel that this newsgroup is the place for it. And
> >because we aren't interested in "using power" (i.e. using it against
> >each other), we've built a place where many folks can visit and find
> >in their friends here the extra support and renewal of perspective
> >they need to go back and deal with their legitimate sufferings in RL.
> >To me, that is more important than *anything* else about this place.
> :
> Haha! I don't think there's a respected psychologist anywhere in the
> world that would agree that escaping legitimate suffering can be good
> in any way. That's why it is called "legitimate" ... it is necessary
> for growth. When you try to escape it, you are unhealthy by
> definition.
Where was the word "escape" used? You introduced it.
We need a place where we can rest, where we can temporarily collect our
spirits before venturing into the harshness of reality. This place provides
that needed rest. I agree that a modicum of suffering is necessary for
growth, and that trying to escape without dealing with it is harmful.
However:
<quote>
> >in their friends here the extra support and renewal of perspective
> >they need to go back and (emphasis here)deal with their legitimate
sufferings in RL.
</quote>
They do deal with them. They don't run away forever.
So this isn't a harmful escape, any more than Boris Yeltsin's holidays are
bad for him. If he hadn't taken them, he might be in intensive care for
cardiac arrest by now. But he took his holiday at his summer dacha, he came
back, and now he's (supposedly) dealing with the problems of Russia. Or
he's trying to.
Whether he actually manages to or not is irrelevant for purposes of this
discussion. The point is: he HAS come back to address the problem.
If the people here spent twenty-four hours a day sitting in front of the
computer reading posts and never got out to face their problems, it would
become unhealthy. As it is they read, they respond, they feel buoyed by the
support from their friends here, and they go out and get to work on their
problems with a renewed sense of purpose. Is there anything wrong with
that?
> :
> >: >: Isn't the perception, definition, and idea/ideal of what a dragon
is exactly
> >: >: *what* your shoul/subconscious is telling you? After all, it comes
from
> >: >: inside...
> >: I can't believe that whoever wrote that is trying to imply that the
> >: nonsense that happens in this group is somehow associated with a
> >: healthy subconscious. Infidelity? Escapism? Denial? No, denial is
> >: NOT a river in Egypt.
> >Oh, please give the psychoanalysis a rest. It's not working, for one
> >thing. It's hard enough to do in RL with real personal contact and
> >detailed information about a patient's background. Trying to do it
> >over the 'net is just plain crazy.
> I can live a healthy lifestyle in real life AND on the Internet.
> There is not EVER a good time to be unhealthy.
(1)What Greffindel is trying to say is that all this throwing in of Freud,
Jung et al is not working, and that he has enough trouble applying it in
real life without having to apply it to people he can't even see. He is not
saying that he chooses to be unhealthy!
(2)What's to say this is unhealthy? Again, it's unhealthy only if one
adopts YOUR particular mindset, YOUR particular paradigm. Which we don't.
> :
> >: Unfortunately, nothing is composed of simple parts. It is not
> >: possible to wash away the evil in the world with overwhelming
> >: happiness. Life is a balancing act, and you must have the harsh with
> >: the soft.
> >Right. Many of us experience an abundance of harsh in RL and a
> >shortage of soft, which is why we do what we do here. If you are
> >experiencing an excess of soft in your life, Sinder, that's fine. I
> >wish you would go somewhere else if you're looking for more
> >harshness-- you'll find what you want, and we'll keep on finding what
> >*we* want.
> :
> If there isn't enough soft in your life, maybe you should do something
> about it OTHER THAN running away from it.
We're receiving the balance of it here! Who's to say this isn't "real"? In
a sense, it is. The recharging of our emotional batteries that takes place
here is as real as anything that happens outside of the Internet. Would it
make any difference if we all got together in (say) a cafe in San Diego, CA
and talked in "real life"? And before you reply, read your proposed retort
and ask yourself: do you REALLY think so?
> :
> >Everyone here is capable of balancing out silliness, and does so
> >perfectly well.
> :
> That's not my observation. You lack supporting evidence.
What evidence do you want? And what evidence can you give for your own
view?
> :
> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >we've disappointed you.
> :
> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
>
Yeah... he's just told you to form your own group
alt.dragons.kill.maim.flame. I don't see why we have to change this group
to suit one person's perceptions.
Kirath
On 27 Jun 1997, Sigridir wrote:
>I never noticed that Pernese dragons were particularly happy. They've
>always struck me as somewhat cool and aloof, except in a mating
>flight......
"The White Dragon", chapter 16, when F'nor arrives to bay. Same chapter,
next morning. Need more?
>Sigridir
Kirath
DC.D f+ s+ h-- Cb a- $- d++ WL++* Fr- L67t23 Bfire e? i-
(Email is wrong, remove something to reply me)
The Violent One
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 02:40:18 GMT, sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder)
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:18:06 -0400, Spitfire <c...@angel-mask.com>
>wrote:
>>Sinder wrote:
>>> I didn't say that you had a problem with pretending to be a dragon, or
>>> even a problem pretending. You just have a problem.
>>An interesting assessment from someone who is, by the context of his
>>own words, unable to work or play well with others.
>:
>I work and play very well with some others, just not with people like
>you.
Hello?! 'Yes, Pat, I'd like to buy a clue...' Shouldn't that tell
you something?
>
>
>
________ _________
\ \ }\ )|( /{ / /
/_ \ } (o o) { / _\
/_ \ } /(..)\{ / _\
*~~~~~(((~~~~~~~~~~~~~)))~~~~~*
* Rhiadorana *
* Storm Dragoness, Poet, *
* And Dreamer *
*DC.D(?)f s++ h+ CV@A a $--- m *
*d++ WL++* Fr- L120f b- e+++g-*
* Jennara Byrdsong, Elven Bard*
* "The toe of a stargazer is *
* often stubbed." *
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
The Violent One
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 02:54:49 GMT, sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder)
wrote:
>> Sinder... if you were in, say... a restaurant... full of
>>smokers, would you "insist" on telling them how detrimental smoking is,
>>and "insist" on them leaving because some studies show that smoking is
>>unhealthy for them and you, even though there is no solid proof written
>>in stone that second hand smoke kills? Or would you leave and save
>>yourself the burden from lecturing people who will never agree with you?
>:
>I am a smoker, and I'm fully aware of the ramifications of my habit.
>I don't see that any of you are aware of the potential negative
>effects of your behavior.
*ahem* WHAT bad effects? Name ten bad effects (logical, well
supported ones) that we're causing and I'll hand over my scales to
you right now! I doubt that you can, Sinder, I seriously doubt it.
>:
>But to answer your question, no I would not say anything because the
>Surgeon General does so for me. Unfortunately, we don't have a
>Psychologist General to put a warning label on the Internet saying,
>"WARNING: Prolonged use of the Internet may be hazardous to your
>long-term psychological development."
That would explain why you're on here, now wouldn't it?
The Violent One
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 02:39:47 GMT, sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder)
wrote:
>>> I didn't say that you had a problem with pretending to be a dragon, or
>>> even a problem pretending. You just have a problem.
>> But that doesn't answer my question. Here, I pretend to be a
>>dragon, and hence, you say essentially "Pretending to be a dragon is
>>unhealthy".
>:
>No no NO! You are suffering selective hearing again. I have
>SPECIFICALLY said, pretending to be a HAPPY dragon is unhealthy, and
>ESCAPISM is unhealthy.
Well, that's peachy keen, Mr. Sinder, cos right now I'm playing a
darned UNHAPPY dragon, one who would very much like to squeeze your
head until your little beady eyes pop out. See? I CAN be your
achetype. Mean, hateful, violent, but only around people who DESERVE
it.... Say, oh, like you perhaps?
>:
>:
>This newsgroup is NOT based on pretending, it is based on dragons.
Oh? Oh, 'scuse me? Were YOU here upon its creation? Was it your
idea? Oh, well, then, PARDON moi... I had no idea you were so
knowledgeable. I suppose we must now bow down to your feet?
>:
Rasha
Sinder whiffled:
> >> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of
> >> rationale that goes beyond "just because" or "because I feel like it".
> >Frankly, that's the only justification you'll ever get out of me.
> Gee, thanks. Now I know what file to put your name in. This will be
> my last response, to the last post of yours I ever read.
> :
"Hey, Spitfire! Join the club!" <big grin> "Let's high-five!"
-- Rasha, A Proud Member Of The "Killfiled By Sinder" Club
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.........
\ / \ ...and Erin Lynn, Beleagured Typist
/|\ / Rasha \ \ (Tested at 76% Dragon Pure!)
/ | \| the \ \ /
/| | | Really ( |/ If a man would move the world,
/ | | _| Real | 0| he first must move himself.
| | |/ | Red | | --Socrates
| |/| | Dragoness | @|
|/| V \ (TM) \ \/ For best results, remove cap.
| V \ _____\\ --Cheez Whiz
V \_______/
DC.D f+ s++ h++ CR^K a- $ m d+++ WL++* Fr++^ e+++ g- i!
ENFP CDC SDS L<14>f <4.25>m BF <erin...@nwlink.com>
Harshanna Listkeeper * Adopted Daughter of Karrie and Naz
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
erin...@nwlink.com
In article <5p2ec4$f...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Napoleon <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> > Okay, Sinder, here's the $5 challenge for you. Take a Greyhound down to
> > Oakland. Get off the bus--I know, it's in a scary part of town, but
> > you're about to do something even scarier. Walk up to the first
> > crackhead you see--they're pretty easy to spot--and point out to him (or
> > her) that crack is a terribly addictive drug, using it is foolish, and
> > he really shouldn't do it.
> Dang! You wanna get him killed, don'cha?! :)
If I *really* wanted to get it killed...well...there's easier ways.
<grin> What I was trying to point out was that Sinder's hiding behind a
screen of "having our best interests at heart" is roughly equatible with
George Bush draping himself in an American flag, and then passing a law
making it a crime to "desecrate" the flag by using it as, say, an image
on clothing. Sinder has proven itself to be nothing more than a whiny
little child who delights in subverting anything it sees. <shrug> I don't
particularly care whether it lives or not...I just get a twisted kick out
of pointing out its inconsistencies and flaws of logic. <evil grin>
BTW- All recent
> messages from Napoleon, is REALLY from me, DarkWolf! I'm using my
> husband's version of Netscape... <blush>
S'okay...Rasha and I have to use Deja News, so we know how it feels to
have strange return addys. <grin>
-- Erin of Amberhaven, Apparantly Killfiled Since Sinder Hasn't Replied
To Any Of Her Messages...
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Spitfire
Rasha wrote:
> Sinder whiffled:
> > >> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of
> > >> rationale that goes beyond "just because" or "because I feel like it".
> > >Frankly, that's the only justification you'll ever get out of me.
> > Gee, thanks. Now I know what file to put your name in. This will be
> > my last response, to the last post of yours I ever read.
> "Hey, Spitfire! Join the club!" <big grin> "Let's high-five!"
Spitfire reaches out and gladly meets the high-five.
THWACK!!
"Aw-RIGHT! I am in exalted company now! Mind you,
it wasn't my goal, but being kill-filed by a kill-joy
was probably inevitable.
"Such a shame it refuses to join in on the fun, but
hey, that's its loss, not mine. Thanx, Rasha!!"
> -- Rasha, A Proud Member Of The "Killfiled By Sinder" Club
"Hey, gang! I've finally thunk of the perfect tag-line for
my little self! Got a page up, too!"
* -- Spitfire!
"It's a dragon thang; you wouldn't understand."
http://www.angel-mask.com/SPITFIRE.HTM
c...@angel-mask.com
Sue Bogar
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Wyrm wrote:
> >Now, when you take a dragon and turn it into an idiot
> >pie-fighter, what are you doing with the lesson? You disrespect
> >yourself by scoffing the lessons that arise from your own psyche.
>
> You are showing that you have mastery over nature to such a degree that you
> can laugh in the face of it.
Hm.. i think this is what the original problem I had with the "serious
dragon" archetype you were referring to, Sinder.. Perhaps we are
referring to something different than you are and also calling it
"dragon", but as archetypes are something everybody agrees on, and we all
agree on it, can we call it an archetype, too? ;).
Anyway.. i think the problem that i had with dragons not being allowed to
be silly is in understanding the reason that we are that way. I mean, any
being with power like that of a dragon could squash a lot of people, and
that would just be a monster, but there is something special about dragons
that makes us love them instead of hate them. I think it is the wisdom
that they are supposed to have (starting with Oriental and Celtic
myths)... A dragon to me, at least, is the power to do anything you want
and the wisdom not to use it, to understand everything to such a degree
that you can laugh at it and enjoy it instead of wasting all your time
trying to understand why it is the way it is.
The reason this group was formed was because certain people were fed up
with the hostile reputation that dragons have gotten in Western society,
which is probably why we spent so much time flaming you instead of
listening to what you actually had to say in between the personal jabs
everyone threw back and forth. This is, perhaps, an olive branch as well
as an attempt at a serious discussion of what seems to be at the root of
our differences... what a dragon is.
> >(B) I believe that the position of this group is already
> >well-understood. What I am trying to establish is that the position
> >of this group is unhealthy in the extreme. That is why I am trying to
> >reach a consensus on the true nature of the dragon.
<grins> you know, there are people that were a part of this group from
years ago when it started that would agree with you, actually. you have
just been a bit more... well, less choosy about your way of expressing it.
This is an elastic medium here. Just because we're silly sometimes doesn't
mean the rest of our lives are like this, though... Doesn't modern
psychology stress the need for a catharsis from pressure and seriousness
and stress in our lives? this is ours. Some may think it goes too far;
sometimes, so do I. But telling people that they need help when they're
participating in a healthy release doesn't make sense, either.
> >I think the concept of having an on-line "mate" that is not the same
> >person as your real life partner is dangerously close to cheating. I
> >wouldn't want my significant other to do it to me, and I wouldn't
> >disrespect her by doing it to her.
some of us here think that, too. in fact, a great deal of us do. I, for
one, do have a mate here, but this person is also an important part of my
real life, (especially when he's home on vacation and i miss his elfy self
<whine> ) and that is the situation of almost all the matings that have
lasted here on a.f.d. we may be silly, but most of us have our morals.
> >That, as you pointed out, is one of the "virtues" of this group. It's
> >virtual. If a dirty old man wants to portray himself as a svelte,
> >virile young man, he can do so. Why would he betray the truth to you?
well, that's why you meet any net people in real life, you meet them in a
nice, public place, and otherwise, does itmatter who you're talking to?
> >By the way, I consider a middle-aged man trying to score with a
> >teenage girl to be a dirty old man. If not in years, DEFINITELY in
> >attitude.
oh dear. is 20 middle aged? ;) sorry, silly dragon coming out again ;)
> >>the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >>we've disappointed you.
> >If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
well, your postmaster din't want to hear him, so e's a bit miffed ;)
<pouncesnuggles da poor troll-like dwagin to make him feel better>
--shimmerwings wyndreamer
Sigridir
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<33bfcc19...@news.olywa.net>...
> On 28 Jun 1997 12:03:57 GMT, "Sigridir" <a...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote in article
> ><33ccba21...@news.olywa.net>...
> >Sinder (or perhaps Snider, which my spellchecker keeps trying to change
> >your name too would be more appropriate),
> :
> Starting off by insulting my name is not a good way to make friends.
> You did make an impression, though; hope you weren't hoping for a good
> one.
> :
Whoever said I wanted to make friends? I just thought I'd start off with a
similar attitude problem to your own. You haven't exactly been the soul of
good manners yourself. You're right, it was a trifle childish though.
> >I've read the recent spate of posts which you have sparked and it seems
to
> >me that the fundamental dichotomy between you and many of the listees
is
> >that you choose to use the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious
and
> >the dragon archetype as the only valid definition of dragon, whereas
others
> >do not. It is tantamount to a religious fanatic claiming that their
> >religion is the one and only truth.
> :
> My point is that there is no basis, anywhere, for a flippant dragon.
> I use Jung simply as a tool to try and illustrate my point.
> :
Really? That doesn't appear to be what you have been saying. In fact you
have been insulting the intelligence, mental state, motivations and
sexuality of members of this group - admittedly using Jung as a tool, or
blunt instrument might be a better analogy.
> >Jung's work is not fact. It is hypothesis on a grand scale. The
collective
> >unconscious is one means of explaining certain commonalities between
> >cultures. Each archetype is a powerful metaphor for some aspect of the
> >human condition, some psychological expression. it is not meant to
clearly
> >define what a dragon is, it uses the dragon as a representation of the
> >archetype.
> :
> I know what an archetype is. Did you have a point?
> :
You seem to be incapable of appreciating the finer points of an argument.
Is it a requirement to make a point with every paragraph? Or am I in fact
allowed to spread 'my point' over a whole mail?
If you actually think about the above paragraph it is serving two purposes.
One, it is establishing a definition of the question we are debating. This
is commonly used in a written response because first, it clarifies whether
we are in fact discussing the same idea (thus enabling misunderstandings to
be recognised) and secondly, it informs other readers of the context of the
debate. Two, it quite clearly states that Jung's psychology is not the fact
you have been treating it as, thus calling into question the integrity of
your argument. Clear enough so far?
> >The archetype of the Terrible Mother does not define what a
> >terrible mother is, it uses the image of the wicked stepmother figure to
> >describe certain fears and dark desires.
> :
> Same for the dragon. Now, what is it going to teach us when we
> trivialize it? Would the Cinderella story be as important to our
> society as it is if the wicked stepmother had been throwing pies and
> telling stupid jokes and hugging people all the time? No, it simply
> wouldn't make any sense; no more sense than a dragon doing the same.
> :
This argument is not valid in the context of a newsgroup. I can call myself
the Wicked Queen From Snow White in here if I wish and then go around being
cute and friendly. It wouldn't affect the story of Snow White in the
slightest because if Jung is correct then the archetype was established in
my subconscious before my conscious mind was fully developed. In the same
way people being dragon in form here (i.e. scaly flying things of the
imagination) can behave how they like: it won't change the imagery of, say
the St. George legend, in the slightest. No one here is saying that the,
shall we say, conventional dragon goes around telling jokes and throwing
pies
> >Archetypes are used in
> >storytelling as a cultural phenomenon partly because children are
brought
> >up from birth with these conventional characters burnt in their psyche,
> >from nursery rhymes to Disney films. The collective unconscious may in
fact
> >be a created entity transmitted by society through indoctrination.
> :
> I never made any conjecture about where archetypes come from. Again,
> please get to the point.
> :
Who cares? I chose to make the conjecture that there may in fact be no such
thing as the collective unconscious (which you seem to believe we are being
damaged by conflicting with). Does everything I do have to be in direct
response to you?
> >If you choose to believe that Jung has it right, that is your choice and
> >your freedom. Do not expect everyone else to accept your point of view.
I
> >am not going to argue the depths of the Jungian philosophy with you
> >because I have not explored them properly. The human mind is a complex
> >structure (if structure is the right word) and I defy anyone to state
> >categorically that we can understand and explain it fully, if indeed
such a
> >thing is possible. Therefore do not claim to hold the one unassailable
> >moral position on what is essentially a creation of the mind.
> :
> This is the wrong newsgroup for that. I was talking about dragons.
You are completely misunderstanding if not willfully misinterpreting any
attempt to have a complex argument as opposed to one-line sniping at one
another. Perhaps the art of debate is different wherever you are, but I
expect people to look at my argument as a whole, not as a series of
disjointed parts. If you are incapable of following an argument across more
than a sentence or two......
You are the person who brought psychology into this newsgroup. If you use
psychology as an argument then expect to have an argument about psychology.
The dragons you refer to are psychological concepts of a particular theory
- the dragons most people seem to use here are a mixture of legend,
fairy-tale, modern fantasy literature, their own imaginations and whimsy.
The two may well be mutually exclusive. So what? If anything you are the
person not conforming to the newsgroup - perhaps you should have your own,
alt.jung.dragons or alt.fan.dragon-archetype?
> :
> >I do not necessarily agree with
> >the 'jester-dragon' concept any more than your dragon with no purpose or
> >sentience other than to exist. However I do not dispute its right to
exist
> >in this landscape of the mind as any lesser or greater than my own
> >interpretation of the dragon.
> :
> Obviously it exists, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. My
> argument is that it should not be honored. The idea of trivializing
> the dragon is a BAD idea, a harmful idea.
> :
..whereas I don't think that it is that significant an issue as issues go.
Did I say that it didn't exist? Either of them? In fact what I said was
that I believe that there is room for both 'dragon-views', and that in my
opinion we cannot say that one is more worthy of existence than the other.
Obviously you feel capable of such decisions.
<snip>
> >> it is a safety net. Now I have given supporting arguments for my
> >> opinion, while I have received none for yours (other than "just
> >> because").
> >In my opinion the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate 'Why
> >not?'
> :
> I have done so repeatedly, and received to valid conter-arguments. If
> you are wondering "where" and "when" I have done so, RE-READ THIS POST
> AGAIN! Or ANY post!
Sir, you have not in my opinion provided a valid argument as to why not. It
may well be that it is simply because we have such differing beliefs about
the nature of this newsgroup and the nature of the dragon. However, so far
you have failed to convince me of anything other than that you like to be
provocative and do not appear to listen to what other people have to say, a
fault which you constantly accuse others of, as above. I eagerly await
further
enlightening debate.
<snip>
> >For myself I do not see any detriment in this newsgroup.
> :
> There's no detriment in a nuclear missile, either, in and of itself.
> And, hey, we never use them! But when you take the time to THINK
> about the long-term implications, and potential uses, you quickly
> realize the horror. So, I invite you, think about it!
>
>
I have thought about it. And you are wrong, there is detriment in a nuclear
missile since it's entire purpose is one of destruction, it has no
beneficial aspect - it is only latent or actual danger. You seem to come up
with the strangest metaphors for these things! Collective fantasy is like
television, it can be used to educate, to promote well-being and to
entertain. It can also be used to spread lies, prejudice and propaganda.
Part of growing up is learning how to deal with this duality. One learns to
understand that you cannot believe everything you are told, and the
difference between fantasy and reality. So long as one is aware of that
difference there is no danger in indulging in the fantasy. It is when that
perception becomes blurred that there may be a problem. I see no reason why
this newsgroup should cause that dividing line to become either hidden or
damaged, therefore I see no harm in it.
Yours,
Sigridir
>
>
Danae Fesler
In article <33b9287e...@news.olywa.net>, sinder...@olywa.net
says...
> >> All things must come to an end.
> >should it matter to you how we live our lives? Is it you mission in life
> >to destroy what others enjoy? If so why?"
> :
> No, I am the voice of reality. I'm someone that likes dragons but
> doesn't like watching people flush their psyches down the toilet. So
> if your way is the right way, it will certainly stand the test of me.
> It doesn't look like its doing so well, though.
"Who are you to judge what is right for other people psyches?"
> >> If there isn't enough soft in your life, maybe you should do something
> >> about it OTHER THAN running away from it.
> >than comminication and to quote you Escape? What about when a person
> >goes to a baseball game or a football game or the Theater isn't that a
> >way to escape as well? It seems like you are saying that everything we do
> >is an escape? Some of us do get more out of the newsgroup than escape.
> :
> I'm here to talk about dragons. Real dragons. And yes, going to a
> baseball or football game or theater can be a form of escape,
> especially if you abuse it and use it to avoid your real-life
> problems. How many men do you know or have heard of that watch sports
> all day long because they are incapable of communicating with their
> wives? Is that healthy?
> :
> And I know you get more out of the newsgroup than simple escape. You
> are also feeding your prurient interests, and escaping from your
> marriage.
"I was going to let my husband respond to this portion but his comments
were too rude to actually post I will say that your accusing me of
"feeding my prurient intersts" is rather interesting considering you have
no idea what my relationship with my online mate is like or what other
hobbies I have other than being online.
"Just to let you know the time I spend online is usually during my kids
naptime while my husband is at work. I irc in the evenings rather than
watching alot of violence on T.V. I paticipate in the poetry readings
and other writing sharing online. It is constructive time that could be
wasted doing other things detrametal to my health. You do not know how I
live or what My life is like other than the small bits you have seen
here. I am not cheating on my husband by having a mate online if my
relationship bothers you thats tough it does not bother my husband and
that is what matters. He does not see it as cheating and neither do I "
> >> >Everyone here is capable of balancing out silliness, and does so
> >> >perfectly well.
> >> That's not my observation. You lack supporting evidence.
> >"So do you, you do not know the people behind the dragons and other
> >creatures here so you can not make an informed opinion without actually
> >meeting us and seeing the way we live and who we are. Besides having a
> >virtual foodfight is a lot cleaner:)"
> :
> Those "virtual food fights" are my supporting evidence. It is well
> out of place.
"They are out of place to you but not to those who partiapate in them.
The foodfights are a goodway to safely release pent up tensions with out
injury"
> >> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
> >> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >> >we've disappointed you.
> >> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
> >"Why should we turn this group into something it was never ment to be
> >just to make you happy? If you want to see all the blood fire and
> >ripping flesh why don't you create your own newsgroup and moderate it
> >yourself make sure that you want happens there, Just don't try and force
> >others to do what you want here!
> :
> Then you shouldn't say you're sorry. Never say "sorry", just don't
> make the same mistake again. If you continue making the same
> mistakes, then you obviously weren't sorry in the first place.
"I did not say I was sorry that was a quote I was following up on so that
my reply would make sense and not be taken out of context and I still say
you would do better to create your own newsgroup ."
Gilraen Astar
Dymus the Daring's mate
Antarius' sister
Adopted sister to many:)
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:31:30 -0700, hob...@no-spam.gigo.com (Danae
> Fesler) wrote:
> >In article <33bcad81...@news.olywa.net>, sinder...@olywa.net
> >says...
> >> All things must come to an end.
> >"Do you mean to be the one who brings our happiness to an end? What
> >should it matter to you how we live our lives? Is it you mission in life
> >to destroy what others enjoy? If so why?"
> :
> No, I am the voice of reality. I'm someone that likes dragons but
> doesn't like watching people flush their psyches down the toilet. So
> if your way is the right way, it will certainly stand the test of me.
> It doesn't look like its doing so well, though.
Our way is the right one for us, your way is the right one for
you. You have no right to tell us your way is right for us also.
> >> If there isn't enough soft in your life, maybe you should do something
> >> about it OTHER THAN running away from it.
> >"Then why are you here? What is the intenet and any newsgroup for other
> >than comminication and to quote you Escape? What about when a person
> >goes to a baseball game or a football game or the Theater isn't that a
> >way to escape as well? It seems like you are saying that everything we do
> >is an escape? Some of us do get more out of the newsgroup than escape.
> :
> I'm here to talk about dragons. Real dragons. And yes, going to a
> baseball or football game or theater can be a form of escape,
> especially if you abuse it and use it to avoid your real-life
> problems. How many men do you know or have heard of that watch sports
> all day long because they are incapable of communicating with their
> wives? Is that healthy?
But be honest, do you TRUELY think every one of us spends 24/7
here on the net? I doubt it. I know some of us spend a good portion of
time here on the net, but still have WONDERFUL real lives, like myself.
> And I know you get more out of the newsgroup than simple escape. You
> are also feeding your prurient interests, and escaping from your
> marriage.
"I shall not judge my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his
moccasins" comes to mind.
<blah blah blah>
> >virtual foodfight is a lot cleaner:)"
> :
> Those "virtual food fights" are my supporting evidence. It is well
> out of place.
They might not be out of place if it is in the "archtype" of
neo-dragons. <snicker>
> >> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
> >> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >> >we've disappointed you.
> >> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
Who do you think you are? King of AFD? <snicker> I refuse to do
what someone else wants unless I think it is appropriate. And here, mean
evil dragons are not appropriate.
> >"Why should we turn this group into something it was never ment to be
> >just to make you happy? If you want to see all the blood fire and
> >ripping flesh why don't you create your own newsgroup and moderate it
> >yourself make sure that you want happens there, Just don't try and force
> >others to do what you want here!
> :
> Then you shouldn't say you're sorry. Never say "sorry", just don't
> make the same mistake again. If you continue making the same
> mistakes, then you obviously weren't sorry in the first place.
I seriously hope you aren't a father. If a child spilled milk
and said "I'm sorry", and does it again, does that mean the child wasn't
sorry in the first place?
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 28 Jun 1997 00:11:00 -0700, Napoleon
> <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> >> Like it or not, you are having an extra-marital affair. It just
> >> doesn't happen to be sexual. And the plain fact is, marriages that
> >> are forced to suffer an extramarital affair rarely, if ever, survive.
> >> Even if they do, they certainly don't continue in the same manner as
> >> they did before; it is always worse.
> > No offense or anything, I'm just curious, do you happen to have
> >a P.h.d or something in Psychology? ]:8)
> What? Unable to come to terms with the fact that I might just be
> smart? Maybe I do, maybe I don't.
Geez, I wasn't expecting a snyde remark. I was just wondering
out of curiousity.
DarkWolf
erin...@nwlink.com wrote:
>
> In article <5p2ec4$f...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Napoleon <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> > > Okay, Sinder, here's the $5 challenge for you. Take a Greyhound down to
> > > Oakland. Get off the bus--I know, it's in a scary part of town, but
> > > you're about to do something even scarier. Walk up to the first
> > > crackhead you see--they're pretty easy to spot--and point out to him (or
> > > her) that crack is a terribly addictive drug, using it is foolish, and
> > > he really shouldn't do it.
> > Dang! You wanna get him killed, don'cha?! :)
>
> If I *really* wanted to get it killed...well...there's easier ways.
<sarcasm> I was from around that area myself, originally. Last time I
was there, it was like looking at L.A. <saddened as I remember how I saw
Oakland as a child and remembering how I last saw it>
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 28 Jun 1997 00:22:01 -0700, Napoleon
> <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> >> >"Sinder, was that you? If so, I'm sorry that you're so unhappy
> >> >that you apparently feel a need to destroy other people's
> >> >pleasures and to make them feel badly about themselves for needing
> >> >a place to play in from time to time. But I'm not going to stop
> >> >playing on account of you. I *need* my fun and laughter."
> >> If a man was walking down the street stabbing himself in the chest
> >> with a knife, and I felt like asking him why he was doing it, I would
> >> do so. If I felt like pointing out the follow of stabbing yourself in
> >> the chest, I would do so.
> > Ah, but would you still do so if that same man turned his
> >suicidal rage on you? What if his life was so miserable and unbearable
> >that he should kill you and then kill himself? You couldn't do anything
> >about it, and for the same reasons, you can't stop us from playing.
> Of course I would still say something. Are you trying to imply that
> you're going to turn your self-destructive behavior on me, ruin my
> personal psychology and self-esteem, and then ruin your own
> afterwards? Why, Nappy, what a wonderful analogy! That's exactly
> what you're all trying to do.
I did not say such a thing. I was extending your own scenario.
Now answer me: Why would you stop him even though you yourself would be
in danger?
> >> If a woman was sipping away at a glass of hemlock, I would tell her
> >> that it was poison and she shouldn't do it. If she got upset and
> >> called me names, simply because I was "making fun of" the only
> >> beverage on the earth that made her feel good, then I certainly would
> >> not feel bad.
> > I think you're the one with a problem. If I happened to insult
> >someone's "intelligence" (be it sane or not), I would feel bad, because,
> >for starters, you don't know if it is straight hemlock, or distilled
> >with the poison removed, I don't know what else is in the drink, and
> >even though my own perception says "that's poison", the person who is
> >drinking it is the only one who truely knows what is in it.
> :
> I have a problem for being concerned about the well-being of others?
> That's not in keeping with your previous claims of altruism.
If you value your life or sanity, do not meddle in the affairs
of others. You could be the one causing the woman to drink the hemlock.
You will never know. And we weren't talking in that above paragraph
about well-being, we were talking about feeling bad about causing/not
causing someone to do something.
> And if it IS distilled hemlock, then she can rationally explain that
> to me and put my concern at rest, rather than vilifying me, as all of
> you do. And NO, "because it tastes good" is NOT a rational argument,
> just as "because it's fun" is not one, either. Cocaine is fun, but
> irrefutably harmful. Alcohol is fun, but even more harmful.
But what if she just wanted you to leave her alone? What if she
didn't WANT to tell you the details of her drink? It is none of your
business to ask OR to lecture.
> So if you're trying to tell me that you would sit there and watch a
> woman drink hemlock and potentially kill herself without saying a
> thing, then I MUST re-affirm that YOU are the one with the problem.
No, because I value my own life. I would not risk my own life to
futilly attempt to save someone else. However, if that was a dear friend
of mine or any of my family, then it is a different story. You know no
one here personally, and you don't know our problems or why exactly
we're here. I expect you to leave your meddling to your family or
friends lives.
> >> Now, I can't stop these people from hurting themselves and doing
> >> stupid things, but I'm sure in the hell not going to give up my right
> >> to express my opinions in deference to your right to be stupid.
> > (to everyone else BUT Sinder: $5 says he doesn't play video
> >games)
> :
> That's rich. I almost laughed. Truth be told, I've beat every level
> of Duke Nuke 'Em on every skill setting. I wish they'd sell an
> expansion pack so I can start playing again. But I certainly don't
> waste my entire life on it; nor do I believe that I am the Duke.
Ah, but during the game, you take on the persona of Duke, YOU
must aim, YOU must see how close the monster (whatever) is to dead, and
hence, you are role-playing. We role-play in the fact that we take on
the personas of different dragons, we aim our pies at each other, we
must determine how messy we all are, and the such. Do you enjoy your
games? Yes? Good. Now let us enjoy ours, unless you want me to start a
new thread on how detrimental playing 3-D shooters are to your psyche.
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:21:48 GMT, laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm)
> wrote:
> >sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
> >>If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
> >>playing [make-believe].
> >The Emperors in China are Dragons.
> >The Pharoahs were Gods.
> >The Celtic Shamen were wolves or birds.
> >Witches were thought of as all sorts of creatures (including wolves).
> >People still believe in God (or Gods).
> >It is only your 20th century mentality that is preventing the leap of
> >imagination to identifying people with Dragons, or other animals
> >(supernatural or not).
> :
> The individuals you cited actually *became* those things they
> represent. They *lived* those roles in every moment of their lives.
They believed they were whatever they were, but they did not
take a physical shape as whatever.
> But what's more important, they served as a tool for the people in
> their society. The Pharaoh as God was a focal point for their people,
> a daily reminder of important subconscious images and drives. The
> role that they assumed arose from the unconscious, and none of it
> would have worked unless all the people had a shared imagery of some
> kind.
> :
> Now, several stumbling blocks arise when we apply that logic to this
> group:
> :
> (o) You do not serve any function in society, as a dragon, outside
> your little clique of dragon-friends (this newsgroup)
No, but in OUR society, we ARE dragons (or whatever) and our
form functions in many different uses. Society can define MANY things.
American society is completely different from Austrailian aboriginie
(ahem, spelling??) society, which is different from an animal society.
Here, we are talking of OUR society, our neo-dragonish society.
> (o) The image does not arise straight from the subconscious, but has
> been twisted to serve your own dysfunctional needs
To change the subject a smidgeon, what do YOU think of unicorns?
Tell me true, are they evil and deceitful in nature, or are they symbols
of good and purity? For in earlier times, the unicorn was a symbol of
destruction and agonizing death, which was worse than a dragon which was
originally a symbol of the elements, fire, water, earth, air, energy,
life, and death. But now, the unicorn is a symbol of peace. Why? Someone
wasn't too thrilled that a white horse with a horn was evil, and said
that it is now a good creature. Someone somewhere along the way did the
same thing with dragons.
> (o) The image you have of dragons is not shared by all people; you
> yourself have repeatedly pointed out how all opinions of dragons vary,
> but to fulfil this role you must find the base form that ALL people
> agree with
Why should we do that here when something like that doesn't even
happen in real life? There is not a single person who completely agrees
with someone else on anything. What I see in say.. a wolf.. isn't
necessarily what other people see. I see a majestic beast, others see
Satan's right hand man, or a ravenous beast. "...find the base form ...
ALL people agree with..." hmmm... I take it you've never seen The
Neverending Story, have you? Falcor is a luck-dragon, but to me he looks
like a Weiner-Dog with a white Labrador Retriever fur, head, and tail.
He strays WAAAAY off from the typical dragon, yet he is still classified
as a dragon. Even that evil black dragon from TNES 2 doesn't quite look
like a typical dragon, but still, he IS a dragon.
> (o) Nobody, NOBODY in this group LIVES their dragon persona; those of
> you who throw pies in here do not do so with such frequency, if at
> all, in real life; you do not tell other people that you honestly
> believe yourself to be a dragon
You haven't seen me at a BBSer's pizza party, have you? <evil
grin>
Rasha
Sinder wrote:
> (o) You do not serve any function in society, as a dragon, outside
> your little clique of dragon-friends (this newsgroup)
You don't know that, and don't have any way of proving it. QED.
> (o) Nobody, NOBODY in this group LIVES their dragon persona; those of
> you who throw pies in here do not do so with such frequency, if at
> all, in real life; you do not tell other people that you honestly
> believe yourself to be a dragon
> :
You don't know that either. QED.
> Before we discuss this further, I must refer you to Joseph Campbell,
> who makes wonderful sense of this concept, the concept of the shaman
> as focus for the people's mythic imagery.
You think we don't know about this already? Okay, now do you want to
take this discussion out of the "psychologically dysfunctional" arena
and into the spiritual realm? Because I assure you, that's opening a
whole 'nother can of whup-ass.
-- Erin of Amberhaven
The Violent One
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:13:38 GMT, sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder)
wrote:
.
>>It is only your 20th century mentality that is preventing the leap of
>>imagination to identifying people with Dragons, or other animals
>>(supernatural or not).
>:
>The individuals you cited actually *became* those things they
>represent. They *lived* those roles in every moment of their lives.
As do I. (See farther down for explanation.)
>:
>But what's more important, they served as a tool for the people in
>their society. The Pharaoh as God was a focal point for their people,
>a daily reminder of important subconscious images and drives. The
>role that they assumed arose from the unconscious, and none of it
>would have worked unless all the people had a shared imagery of some
>kind.
>:
>Now, several stumbling blocks arise when we apply that logic to this
>group:
>:
>(o) You do not serve any function in society, as a dragon, outside
>your little clique of dragon-friends (this newsgroup)
Pardon moi yet again, but I do. I've always considered dragons as
working hand in claw with the creative muse, weaving stories and poems
and the like. You can see just how much of that is true, just by
looking at the talent in this newsgroup. I myself am a writer, and
through this medium I've found my muse, and it is very helpful
outside my "little clique of dragon-friends". I am a protector, and a
guardian of those I love, as I believe dragons were. I will not stand
for anyone harming or threatening those that are close to my heart.
>:
>(o) The image does not arise straight from the subconscious, but has
>been twisted to serve your own dysfunctional needs
I beg to differ. Many of us have had a love of dragons since
childhood, or when we first stumbled across them. A book I read about
discovering your "totems" said that anything which you have felt a
close attatchment or fascination to is your totem and therefore is a
part of you.
>:
>(o) The image you have of dragons is not shared by all people; you
>yourself have repeatedly pointed out how all opinions of dragons vary,
>but to fulfil this role you must find the base form that ALL people
>agree with
Who cares if it is or not? It is our choice and our decision. Other
people can view us however they want to. (Clarification - They should
not, however, encroach upon our happiness because it is none of their
business how we have fun.)
>:
>(o) Nobody, NOBODY in this group LIVES their dragon persona; those of
>you who throw pies in here do not do so with such frequency, if at
>all, in real life; you do not tell other people that you honestly
>believe yourself to be a dragon
Bull :) I, for one, believe that dragons are peaceful, benevolent,
and most of all, =understanding= creatures, and I allow that to
overflow into my life as a human. And, no matter how sick you think I
am, I believe that in a past life I was truly what my spirit says I
am. A dragon. And yes, I DO tell people in my life wha I believe
myself to be. They chuckle, or laugh, as all people would, but they
certainly don't debate the issue until they're beating a dead horse,
like some people around here.. *pointed look*
CyberTiger
Rasha wrote:
>
> Sinder whiffled:
> > >> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of
> > >> rationale that goes beyond "just because" or "because I feel like it".
> > >Frankly, that's the only justification you'll ever get out of me.
> > :
> > Gee, thanks. Now I know what file to put your name in. This will be
> > my last response, to the last post of yours I ever read.
> > :
> "Hey, Spitfire! Join the club!" <big grin> "Let's high-five!"
Didn't Sinder say a while back how "childish" it was to post a
message saying "I'm posting this message to say goodbye. *click*"?
Not that it matters... I probably joined the ranks of the club long
time ago. *shrug*
> -- Rasha, A Proud Member Of The "Killfiled By Sinder" Club
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> .........
> \ / \ ...and Erin Lynn, Beleagured Typist
> /|\ / Rasha \ \ (Tested at 76% Dragon Pure!)
> / | \| the \ \ /
> /| | | Really ( |/ If a man would move the world,
> / | | _| Real | 0| he first must move himself.
> | | |/ | Red | | --Socrates
> | |/| | Dragoness | @|
> |/| V \ (TM) \ \/ For best results, remove cap.
> | V \ _____\\ --Cheez Whiz
> V \_______/
> DC.D f+ s++ h++ CR^K a- $ m d+++ WL++* Fr++^ e+++ g- i!
> ENFP CDC SDS L<14>f <4.25>m BF <erin...@nwlink.com>
> Harshanna Listkeeper * Adopted Daughter of Karrie and Naz
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
CyberTiger ^..^
Member, SDS
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm) wrote:
>>sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>>>If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
>>>playing [make-believe].
>>The Emperors in China are Dragons.
>>The Pharoahs were Gods.
>>The Celtic Shamen were wolves or birds.
>>Witches were thought of as all sorts of creatures (including wolves).
>>People still believe in God (or Gods).
>>It is only your 20th century mentality that is preventing the leap of
>>imagination to identifying people with Dragons, or other animals
>>(supernatural or not).
>The individuals you cited actually *became* those things they
>represent. They *lived* those roles in every moment of their lives.
I do realise that, that's why I posted it.
>But what's more important, they served as a tool for the people in
>their society. The Pharaoh as God was a focal point for their people,
>a daily reminder of important subconscious images and drives. The
>role that they assumed arose from the unconscious, and none of it
>would have worked unless all the people had a shared imagery of some
>kind.
This is all reasonably well understood.
>Now, several stumbling blocks arise when we apply that logic to this
>group:
>(o) You do not serve any function in society, as a dragon, outside
>your little clique of dragon-friends (this newsgroup)
How do you know that? You have no proof of that whatsoever so you cannot
make that assumption. You do not know me or my society.
>(o) The image does not arise straight from the subconscious, but has
>been twisted to serve your own dysfunctional needs
Considering that you have not spent any time trying to understand this
image, this is also an invalid statement. Instead you have spent all your
time fighting against the whole group.
>(o) The image you have of dragons is not shared by all people; you
>yourself have repeatedly pointed out how all opinions of dragons vary,
>but to fulfil this role you must find the base form that ALL people
>agree with
The image I have of Dragons is based on archetypes from different ancient
cultures. It is not shared by all people as no image is shared by all
people. All I have to do is find a base form in a particular culture, or a
particular time, not for the whole human race. Then, how I choose to
portray that base form is then up to me.
>(o) Nobody, NOBODY in this group LIVES their dragon persona; those of
>you who throw pies in here do not do so with such frequency, if at
>all, in real life; you do not tell other people that you honestly
>believe yourself to be a dragon
Once again, you have no proof as a basis for that statement. In fact, I
would believe that this last statement is in fact incorrect.
>Before we discuss this further, I must refer you to Joseph Campbell,
>who makes wonderful sense of this concept, the concept of the shaman
>as focus for the people's mythic imagery.
Yep. I am aquainted with his ideas.
Wyrm.
--
Wyrm: http://www.wyrm.demon.co.uk/
DC.D f++ s-- h++ Cfire a+++++ $+ (m) d+++
WL++ Fr++++ L700f BF e+++ g-- i+! U+++
If you fight too long against Dragons,
you become a Dragon yourself.
Nietzsche.
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> Archetypes are a tool to discover what all men, all cultures, and all
> times have in common. It is a tool in the search for meaning in life
> and man's existence.
"And like all tools, when it becomes out-dated or useless, we discard it."
--
Sabargen
Warrior-Mage and Philosopher,
Guardian of the Southern Ranges
DC.D f s--- h+ Cdustyblack $ a(d+ h)
i e+++ m- d+ WL++* Fr g- Bvenom L9m U-
You can visit my typist at:
http://users.iafrica.com/p/pf/pfm/
Paul Morrison
> sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
> >If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
> >playing [make-believe].
"Well, like many other people I was born in the year of the dragon and can thus
call myself a dragon. Not only can I call myself a dragon, but it means that I
*am* a dragon."
--
Sabargen, the dragon
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> Are you a total idiot?
"Hm, a good question, and one which I have asked myself on many occasions.
After much soul searching and discussion amongst my peers I would have to reply
that I am not a total idiot."
> And as to a reference for my statement, I refer you to western
> civilization.
"I have never had much faith in Western civilization. Personally I think it is
all a communist plot and has been made up. The earth is flat and there are only
5 continents."
> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of rationale that goes beyond "just
because" or "because I feel like it".
"I have yet to see one of your mythical "just because" posts, as well as the
"because I feel like it" ones."
> I feel like the majority of you are idiots, does that necessarily make
> it so?
"I doubt it. Unless of course you are some supreme deity, in which case
everything you thought would become reality, just like that. However you have
yet to convince me that you are a supreme deity, or even an intelligent mortal,
and as such your opinions mean as much to me as I am sure my opinions mean to
you."
--
Sabargen
Greffindel
Spitfire (c...@angel-mask.com) emitted:
: Rasha wrote:
:
: > Sinder whiffled:
: > > >> Not necessarily logic, just some sort of
: > > >> rationale that goes beyond "just because" or "because I feel like it".
: > > >Frankly, that's the only justification you'll ever get out of me.
: > > Gee, thanks. Now I know what file to put your name in. This will be
: > > my last response, to the last post of yours I ever read.
If only we could all accomplish this... Then he'd never respond to anywyrm.
: > "Hey, Spitfire! Join the club!" <big grin> "Let's high-five!"
: Spitfire reaches out and gladly meets the high-five.
: THWACK!!
: "Aw-RIGHT! I am in exalted company now! Mind you,
: it wasn't my goal, but being kill-filed by a kill-joy
: was probably inevitable.
: "Such a shame it refuses to join in on the fun, but
: hey, that's its loss, not mine. Thanx, Rasha!!"
:
: > -- Rasha, A Proud Member Of The "Killfiled By Sinder" Club
--Greffindel-- I liked the product so much, I bought the company! :)
: "Hey, gang! I've finally thunk of the perfect tag-line for
: my little self! Got a page up, too!"
: * -- Spitfire!
: "It's a dragon thang; you wouldn't understand."
: http://www.angel-mask.com/SPITFIRE.HTM
: c...@angel-mask.com
/\/ \/ \/\
/ ( O O ) \ Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
/ */\_/\_/\__\_ --G. K. Chesterton
/ *( o \
|*\ --v-v-v-v |When you hear somebody declare that violence and brutality
\*\==\ are important, vital parts to life and that we need to keep them
\*\==\ around, you're hearing someone make excuses for him/herself.
.sig |*|==|
V2.0 |*|==| Would it save you any trouble if I just went mad now?
|*|==| --Arthur Dent
Rasha
Sinder wrote:
> There are things in my life other than smoking. Like exercise. I'm
> healthy overall, when you average in all factors.
> :
Yep. Especially when you average in the time spent each night arguing
pointlessly on several different newsgroups a night. Hey, Sinder, is
the ulcer bothering you yet?
> Also, smoking does not define my identity. I don't introduce myself
> to people, "Hi, my name is Shane, and I'm a smoker." Unlike the
> alcoholic, the person who as taken their addiction too far, who gives
> the, "Hi, I'm Bob, and I'm an alcoholic."
> :
Actually, people who are theoretically recovering from alcoholism
introduce themselves that way. People who *are* alcoholics don't.
However, smoking does define your identity, since every time somebody
sees you smoking, or smells smoke on your person, they immediately
identify you as a smoker.
> And for your information, I'm about to quit, just like I quit before.
> I just start smoking for a month or two every once in a while and then
> quit again afterwards.
> :
And *you're* lecturing *us* about denial and unhealthy behaviors?
You're either a fool or simply very, very stupid, Sinder.
> > Who died and made you Psychologist General?
> Who died and made you a dragon?
Who died and gave you the impression that you're intelligent?
We can go on like that for days, if you'd like...
-- Erin of Amberhaven
Rasha
Sinder wrote:
> >"My documented proof? See below."
> >es·cap·ism (î-skâąpîz´em) noun
> >The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in
> >daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment.
> :
> This is proof? Hahaha! You can't say that a word and the words used
> to define it are the same! Hahaha! What a goob.
> :
> Here's some more proof for you:
> :
> que·bark (kwábark) noun
> The act of quebarking; one who quebarks.
> :
> que·bark·ing (kwábarkíng) adjective
> In performance of a quebark; being as a quebark.
> :
Interesting...now Sinder is claiming that the dictionary isn't proof
enough for its purposes. One has to wonder what it believes to be an
"authority." Perhaps...nothing more than its own precious pearls of
wisdom? Perhaps?
-- Erin of Amberhaven
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 1997 03:40:01 -0700, DarkWolf
> <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> > Explain to me specifically why a HAPPY dragon is unhealthy, but
> >a SAD dragon is not?:
> :
> You mean, you haven't been paying attention AT ALL?
I meant paraphrase your whole argument.
> >And what if, perhaps, all your life, you've read
> >stories of happy dragons, such as the ones I have read and the ones I am
> >writing? Would that some how affect your subconsious?
> :
> If all the stories, throughout history, were of happy dragons, we
> wouldn't be having this conversation. Something else in our
> subconscious would represent what dragons now do.
Let's take one single human. He's read stories all his life of
happy dragons, and the idea of a mean dragon is absurd to him. He's
never heard of dragons of evil such as Tarrasque, the Lambton dragon,
and the such. Would it be unhealthy for this one person to imagine
himself as a happy dragon, or would it be even unhealthier for him to
imagine himself as an evil dragon?
> >And isn't going to a movie escapism,
> >even if it is for a short while? Wouldn't that be unhealthy?
> :
> No, going to a movie is a brief escape. Escapism is escape taken to
> an unhealthy level; using escape to deal with your problems.
As is this. I do this every chance I get, which is usually at
most once early morning, once late at night. I think it is safe to say
that it is a rarity to find someone who has nothing to do in reality
other than read a.f.d.
> >I drink, I
> >smoke, I have
>
>god-knows-how-many-electrical-devices-attached-to-one-surge-protector.
> :
> What do you smoke? Well, I smoke, too, and I'm aware of how unhealthy
> it is for me. So I temper it with cardiovascular exercise. I
> CERTAINLY do NOT claim that smoking is healthy for me.
Carltons. Lightest in tar and nicotine, might I add, and I have
made plans with my family to quit tomorrow (going through 2 cartons a
day 'tween three or four people a day is not healthy one bit). You admit
it is unhealthy for you, but why do you continue to do it? I say yeah,
pretending to be a dragon *MIGHT* be unhealthy, but for me to stop I
wanna see some statics, a surgeon generals warning, professional
commercials every five minutes of the day, and the like. You have plenty
of reasons to stop, yet you ignore them. You haven't given us a single
GOOD reason to stop, so hence we will ignore you.
> >Are you going to lecture us on how "unhealthy" those are too?
> :
> In a dragon group? Get a grip.
> :
> >> This newsgroup is NOT based on pretending, it is based on dragons.
> > But dragons are imagined creatures, are they not? And we are
> >pretending to be dragons. So hence, the inhabitants of this NG are
> >pretending to be dragons, the NG itself is about pretending to be a
> >dragon, and how a pretend dragon's (or other creature's )lifestyle is.
> >(OK people-who-been-here-longer-that-me, does that about sum it up?)
> :
> I see a huge historical basis for dragons that may or may not be
> pretend. I study dragons in and of themselves, not dragons as reality
> or dragons as pretend. Just ... dragons.
But to study dragons, you must choose whether the dragons you
study are real (Komodo) or imaginary (Tiamat). There is no in-between.
(not Pern's between). Do you study their body? Easy, 2 or 4 legs, 2, 4
or no wings, simple as that. Do you study their minds? Imaginary dragons
have no minds for they are not real, and if you wanna study real
dragons' minds, then go take a class of dissection in college or
whatever.
> >> And if you think that Jung is a joke, your opinion would do well with
> >> some success in your life to back it up.
> > You wanna know my success in life? I have a wonderful husband,
> >two kids, and I probably make more in a week that you do in 10 years.
> >AND I'm only 19 (in RL).
> :
> Two kids at 19? Uh oh...
I have beautiful twin sons a year and a half old. They are my
pride and joy, and I would do anything for them. You however, with your
apparent dictator-like opinions, in my opinion, would make a horrible
parent, worthy of having your kids taken away from you. I can provide
everything they will ever need, be it love or money. You seem to have
the inability to care for anyone. I play with my children, encouraging
them to grow. You said yourself you don't work or play well with others.
To be able to raise children properly, you must understand them, to be
empathetic to how they feel. You are incapable of feeling. For your
children's sake, if and when you have them, learn to listen to others
and to understand how they feel, for if you don't, they will hate you
forever.
Dymus
DarkWolf wrote:
>
> Sinder wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Jun 1997 16:27:57 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
> > wrote:
> > Bringing more happiness into your life, I agree with. However, you
> > are using the only thing inside you capable of balancing out the
> > overwhelming giddy happiness that has been a result of that endeavor.
> > You are throwing out temperance and replacing it with blindness.
That I would disagree with, I try to exert all the aspect of the dragon
from myself when appropriate. I have from looking into the dragon in
myself achived patience, determination, wisdom, a drive to succeed,
the ability to overcome my shyness, maturity, reason, logic, self-
confidence, self-esteem, a work ethic, understanding, self-control, and
a sense of self empowerment. As well as some other traits that aren't
always socially accpeted such as vindictiveness, a temper, at times
perhaps a larger ego than I deserve, a distain for rudeness and
authority for authority's sake, and a more aggressive personality (which
can and sometimes cannot be good depending on the way in which you
use it).
All of these things I achieved from exploring my dragon side, not just
one, but all. So I belive all of these things to be part of the dragon.
Dymus
Dymus
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 1997 13:38:18 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
> wrote:
> Now we're getting somewhere. My point is, dragons were not simply
> "made up". There is no thing that does not follow the things that
> came before. It then follows that the dragon concept came from
> somewhere, to serve a function. I believe that function is to teach
> us something about ourselves and the world around us, by way of
> parable. Now, when you take a dragon and turn it into an idiot
> pie-fighter, what are you doing with the lesson? You disrespect
> yourself by scoffing the lessons that arise from your own psyche.
*Dymus blinks for a moment* Now, here you have a very good point
Sinder.
With this last paragraph I can understand your viewpoint a little more
now, and better understand where you are coming from in terms of your
discussions. Though you are presuming that the image of the dragon
represents a lesson to be taught to ourselves. I can accept that as
well and agree with it, but think of it this way: Perhaps the image
of the dragon is only an abstract lesson trying to teach us more
about ourselves. There is no set lesson plan, no real goal OTHER than
trying to teach us more about ourselves. With that in mind, perhaps
those that use dragons in play and frivolty are learning more about
their imagination, creativity, and writing skills. In this sense
they are learning more about themselves in the process, perhaps not
the power image of the dragon, but use the dragon image to express and
learn more. It may be a different view of what the dragon image has
to teach from your own, but it does teach them something of themselves
using that image as a means to convey it. Perhaps a different image
would be appropriate in your opinion, but for some the dragon image
is the perfect image to convey that. Possibly from a facination with
dragons in the first place, it may seem like a natural image to pick
up and use for these purposes. Also, i've seen quite a few dragons,
myself possibly included in this example, that came here to begin with
in play. After a while though, with learning more about their dragon
image/self/totem/etc. they have matured and learned more about
themselves
in the process. Play becomes less and less frequent, and intelligent
discussion, interaction, and changes within the personality of the
individual comes about emulating more and more the dragon image.
Coming here for the first few weeks is like being hatched as a new
dragon, there is a period of childhood, short for some, longer for
others, but eventually there comes a time when it is grown out of. This
is not to say that maturity doesn't allow for the occasional outburst
of play, but it does come less frequent.
> >But I think that a view of Dragon as being the acme of
> >the destructive forces within and without is (while as valid as any
> >other view of Dragon) not one that will help a person understand the
> >phenomena of this particular group very well.
> :
> (A) I do not believe dragons to be the acme of destructive forces,
> just a representation of self-motivated power.
Ok, you and I agree here, self-motivated power, if tempered with wisdom
is a good thing.
> (B) I believe that the position of this group is already
> well-understood. What I am trying to establish is that the position
> of this group is unhealthy in the extreme. That is why I am trying to
> reach a consensus on the true nature of the dragon.
That could be very difficult, since cultures themselves have no clear
all encompasing facts as to the true nature of the dragon. The
variances
within the legends themselves show such differences of opinion.
> >Brainlessly gleeful: yes, probably. Fun is a major thing that keeps
> >folks here.
> It also drives a lot of folks out.
I suppose it could, but what would you suggest, two alt.fan.dragons
newsgroups? One for those that like to have the fun and frivolty and
one that comes closer to your opinion of the dragon image?
> That, as you pointed out, is one of the "virtues" of this group. It's
> virtual. If a dirty old man wants to portray himself as a svelte,
> virile young man, he can do so. Why would he betray the truth to you?
He has no reason to, fact. Though also because this is virtual you
have to either take people by their word, or you can question everything
without proof. I find no harm in taking people by their word here as
long as I don't have a reason to doubt their intentions.
> >Everyone here is capable of balancing out silliness, and does so
> >perfectly well.
> :
> That's not my observation. You lack supporting evidence.
I suppose I could cite posts from the past to you Sinder, but the
trouble
to dig them up is more than I want to exert right now, I appologise.
What
I can give you as evidence though is myself. Right now I'm not being
silly
or playful, I'm not throwing virtual pies at you, or any of these
things,
yet there are times which, if the situation called for it, I might. I
am
quite capable of being dead serious if I want to be but I come here SOME
not ALL of the time to speak with friends and have a relatively civil
time.
> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
> >we've disappointed you.
> :
> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
Point made.
Well, I am not sorry about it myself. Though I'm sure there are other
newsgroups
and places to visit throughout the net where I'm sure you would find
things
more to your liking. It is easier to find a place to live rather than
tear
down the existing neighborhood and build your own mansion.
Dymus
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:11:54 GMT, laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm)
>wrote:
>>Eh? It's quite obvious really. I'm saying that it is not always time to
>>play. I'm also stating that there are many other things that motivate us,
>>not just Dragons.
>If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
>playing [make-believe].
And what of those that believe they are, are part of, or guided by a
benevolent spirit of a dragon? Are they playing make believe as well?
And if you say they are (playing make-believe) then how might you go
about proving this theory?
Dymus
Mate of the lovely Gilraen Astar
--
dy...@verinet.com
http://www.verinet.com/~dymus
I'm not hyper, just lethargically challenged.
Might as well input my Dragoncode here :)
DC.D f+(choc) s++ h++ CQ a $- m++ d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L55t32 BSt e(var) g- i---! U
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>> But that doesn't answer my question. Here, I pretend to be a
>>dragon, and hence, you say essentially "Pretending to be a dragon is
>>unhealthy".
>:
>No no NO! You are suffering selective hearing again. I have
>SPECIFICALLY said, pretending to be a HAPPY dragon is unhealthy, and
>ESCAPISM is unhealthy.
But what if what is being practiced here is not escapism, but a health
diversion from the stresses of life. I know many an individual that
read novels for a diversion from the normal rigors of life. That in
and of itself IS healthy, whereas here is an outlet where you can
share experiences discuss dragon topics, and perhaps just be yourself,
or at least the embodiment of what you would like yourself to be.
That also is healthy. The only time I can see that such a diversion
is unhealthy is if it becomes an all consuming obsession to be here
most of your waking hours.
>>And hey, since this newsgroup is based off "pretending",
>>what harm would it do to you to pretend that it isn't harmful? (BTW-
>>Jung is a joke). :)
>:
>This newsgroup is NOT based on pretending, it is based on dragons.
I do agree that the newsgroup is based on dragons, however the
differences in opinions as to what a dragon really embodies is getting
rather tiresome. What I think needs to happen Sinder is that you
allow others to try and do as they wish with their dragon image (yes
it is their image) rather than try to bully your opinions onto them.
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 1997 21:10:57 GMT, "Sigridir" <a...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote in article
> >> >Sinder (or perhaps Snider, which my spellchecker keeps trying to change
> >> >your name too would be more appropriate),
> >> Starting off by insulting my name is not a good way to make friends.
> >> You did make an impression, though; hope you weren't hoping for a good
> >> one.
> >Whoever said I wanted to make friends? I just thought I'd start off with a
> >similar attitude problem to your own. You haven't exactly been the soul of
> >good manners yourself. You're right, it was a trifle childish though.
(grumbling to others around me: childish, huh?)
> Don't bother insisting that I have good manners when you do not
> yourself. Try leading by example, rather than this petty tit-for-tat
> crap.
> :
> >> My point is that there is no basis, anywhere, for a flippant dragon.
> >> I use Jung simply as a tool to try and illustrate my point.
> >Really? That doesn't appear to be what you have been saying. In fact you
> >have been insulting the intelligence, mental state, motivations and
> >sexuality of members of this group - admittedly using Jung as a tool, or
> >blunt instrument might be a better analogy.
> :
> Perhaps the group is deserving of insults.
And how praytell do you know we are deserving of insults?
Only a childish immature baby sissy-la-la whos mentality is surpassed by
a 5th grader uses insults. Rational mature adults converse, not insults.
<and so on...>
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>>I'd ask the same of you? I don't find your Power fixation at all
>>enhancing, S.
>:
>I may have fixations, but power is not one of them. But when looking
>at dragons, power is what is suggested to me. If you disagree, please
>SHOW ME.
I agree with you a great deal in stating that dragons are a symbol of
power. I cannot disagree with that. What I don't agree with you is
that dragons are always destructive or evil in their use of power.
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>On 28 Jun 1997 14:16:00 -0700, DarkWolf
>I am a smoker, and I'm fully aware of the ramifications of my habit.
>I don't see that any of you are aware of the potential negative
>effects of your behavior.
I would first like to see proof of the damage my behavior can cause.
I have yet (and being here for 2 1/2 years) to see any damage caused
by my behavior here as a dragon anywhere, whether in everyday offline
life or here online. Without proof or at least a theory as to what
damage I might cause or have caused I cannot accept the above
statement.
>But to answer your question, no I would not say anything because the
>Surgeon General does so for me. Unfortunately, we don't have a
>Psychologist General to put a warning label on the Internet saying,
>"WARNING: Prolonged use of the Internet may be hazardous to your
>long-term psychological development."
True, and for good reason, there's never been any concrete evidence to
support that statement.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>On 29 Jun 1997 21:10:57 GMT, "Sigridir" <a...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Whoever said I wanted to make friends? I just thought I'd start off with a
>>similar attitude problem to your own. You haven't exactly been the soul of
>>good manners yourself. You're right, it was a trifle childish though.
>Don't bother insisting that I have good manners when you do not
>yourself. Try leading by example, rather than this petty tit-for-tat
>crap.
Hmm. Interesting. Sinder has twisted Sigridir's words (still quoted) from
meaning that she thinks Sinder has bad manners to mean that she is
insisting Sinder has good manners! Then he comes out with hypocrisy!
>>> My point is that there is no basis, anywhere, for a flippant dragon.
>>> I use Jung simply as a tool to try and illustrate my point.
>>Really? That doesn't appear to be what you have been saying. In fact you
>>have been insulting the intelligence, mental state, motivations and
>>sexuality of members of this group - admittedly using Jung as a tool, or
>>blunt instrument might be a better analogy.
>Perhaps the group is deserving of insults.
A typical case of self-justification.
>>Is it a requirement to make a point with every paragraph? Or am I in fact
>>allowed to spread 'my point' over a whole mail?
>You're wasting bandwidth and my time in an effort to sound smart, but
>you only come across as a pseudo-intellectual. Move on...
In other words, the point was valid and correct, however Sinder cannot
handle that and so has to ridicule the person who made the point.
>>This argument is not valid in the context of a newsgroup. I can call myself
>>the Wicked Queen From Snow White in here if I wish and then go around being
>>cute and friendly. It wouldn't affect the story of Snow White in the
>>slightest because if Jung is correct then the archetype was established in
>>my subconscious before my conscious mind was fully developed. In the same
>>way people being dragon in form here (i.e. scaly flying things of the
>>imagination) can behave how they like: it won't change the imagery of, say
>>the St. George legend, in the slightest. No one here is saying that the,
>>shall we say, conventional dragon goes around telling jokes and throwing
>>pies
>You're simply making excuses for your behavior. There's no reason in
>that at all.
Again a short brush-off. The argument must be so persuasive that Sinder
cannot think of anything to counter it! Thus he uses a 'it's not because it
just isn't' tack.
>>You are completely misunderstanding if not willfully misinterpreting any
>>attempt to have a complex argument as opposed to one-line sniping at one
>>another. Perhaps the art of debate is different wherever you are, but I
>>expect people to look at my argument as a whole, not as a series of
>>disjointed parts. If you are incapable of following an argument across more
>>than a sentence or two......
>No, I just hate pseudo-intellectuals. You obviously are one.
Again an attempt at making the person who brought the point seem to be
Sinder's inferior. Evidently Sinder cannot counter the argument put forward
by Sigridir, hence he has to fight back in with a lower form of argument,
using insults. The next step down is physical violence. This tells us a lot
about the psychological make-up of Sinder.
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm) wrote:
>>Think back to Sinder's first few posts to this group. The first things he
>>said were basically abusive. He decided to call all those on the newsgroup
>>'sick' and all sorts of other names rather than explain things in a calm
>>and rational manner. This is not the image of someone who is trying to
>>'save' people from themselves. It is the image of someone who just wants
>>attention by being provocative.
>You are sick.
But only in your eyes Sinder. What does that say about you?
>>In Sinder's own story, if he walked up to the woman drinking hemlock and
>>said 'you're sick and demented because you're drinking that stuff', she'd
>>simply turn round and tell him where to go.
>That's your justification for drinking hemlock?
Of course I couldn't have expected Sinder to grasp what I was saying.
>>I'm am becoming more and more convinced that Sinder is the one with the
>>real problem.
>Let me save you some effort. I have the biggest problem in the
>universe. I'm the sickest individual you've ever met.
That's good. The first step towards a cure is to accept the truth.
However I'm still not sure that all this over-exagguration is healthy
either.
>Now that we're past that, just respond to the point.
I have.
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>On 28 Jun 1997 00:11:00 -0700, Napoleon
><"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
>>> Like it or not, you are having an extra-marital affair. It just
>>> doesn't happen to be sexual. And the plain fact is, marriages that
>>> are forced to suffer an extramarital affair rarely, if ever, survive.
>>> Even if they do, they certainly don't continue in the same manner as
>>> they did before; it is always worse.
>> No offense or anything, I'm just curious, do you happen to have
>>a P.h.d or something in Psychology? ]:8)
>:
>What? Unable to come to terms with the fact that I might just be
>smart? Maybe I do, maybe I don't.
On the contrary, I do believe you are very intelligent myself sinder,
I just question your motives at times. Intelligence does not always
denote wisdom however either.
Greffindel
Dymus (dy...@verinet.com) emitted:
: sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
: >On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:21:48 GMT, laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm)
: >wrote:
[ lots of good responses to various Sinderian assertions ]
: >Before we discuss this further, I must refer you to Joseph Campbell,
: >who makes wonderful sense of this concept, the concept of the shaman
: >as focus for the people's mythic imagery.
: Agreed, finally on this point at least.
Campbell's books are fascinating and wonderful. And as enriching and
nourishing as I found them, I must say that I don't find them all that
supportive of S.'s dogma.
See, one thing S. needs to grow out of is this idea of his that the
only way anyone can possibly disagree with him is by not being as
well-read as he (or having failed to 'Understand' what he's read).
: Dymus
: Mate of the lovely Gilraen Astar
: --
: dy...@verinet.com
: http://www.verinet.com/~dymus
: I'm not hyper, just lethargically challenged.
:
: Might as well input my Dragoncode here :)
: DC.D f+(choc) s++ h++ CQ a $- m++ d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L55t32 BSt e(var) g- i---! U
Btw, *WELCOMEBACKSNUGGLEHUGGLESTODYMUS!!!*
--Greffindel the Plaid
Rexalc
Dymus wrote:
>
> sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>
> >On 25 Jun 1997 17:45:40 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
> >wrote:
> >>Sinder (sinder...@olywa.net) emitted:
> >>: On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:03:53 GMT, dy...@verinet.com (Dymus) wrote:
> >>: >sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
> >>: Oh my goodness! I made a spelling error! Should I change my alias
> >>: and attack the group under a different guise now?
>
> I suppose you could if you really wanted to, but *shrug* it would be
> more effort than I would want to spend. And anyhow, I wasn't
> suggesting anything to you by pointing out the error, I was trying to
> make it clearer for others who read the post and might misinterpret
> what you were trying to say. Please, before going off the handle,
> think about things from my point of view.
Why would he want to do that, Dymus? He is SINDER, and you disagree with
him, so your point of view is obviously worthless.
Rexalc Stormcrest
DC.D f+ s+ h CP|KwW:w a++++ $--- L BI,W,Z,Rainbows e---(weather: e+++)
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> And yet the have different connotations. "Ocean" refers to the large
> body of water covering two-thirds the earth as a whole, and to those
> parts of that body into which man has divided them. "Sea" refers to
> the part of the ocean that you are on, and most often to the
> conditions thereof. For example, the Sea has waves, whereas the ocean
> is just a bunch of water in pretty much any or no activity.
"In part that is correct, but each word has several connotations, and for the
example I was giving you, both refer to the large body of water which covers
most of the surface of the planet."
> This is proof? Hahaha! You can't say that a word and the words used
> to define it are the same! Hahaha! What a goob.
"You can if you are using a thesaurus.
> Here's some more proof for you:
> :
> que·bark (kwábark) noun
> The act of quebarking; one who quebarks.
> :
> que·bark·ing (kwábarkíng) adjective
> In performance of a quebark; being as a quebark.
"This is not a thesaurus. I also have some serious reservations about the
legitimacy of this extract, as well as some concerns for the sanity of the
author who seems to be reverting to making up words in a feeble attempt to
prove a point."
> That's like saying that the definition to a hammer and a nail are the same.
> "Hammer: a tool used to drive nails into wood".
"Now you are just being silly. Keep up the good work Spunky."
> Fantasy may be a good thing. A tendency to use fantasy to escape from
> reality is not. An escape from reality may be a good thing. A
> tendency to do so, especially daily, is not.
"I see no one here using the newsgroup to escape from reality. If _you_ do,
well, maybe those acid flashbacks are getting to be a bit troublesome."
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> > No offense or anything, I'm just curious, do you happen to have
> >a P.h.d or something in Psychology? ]:8)
> Maybe I do, maybe I don't.
"In other words, you dont."
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> >"But we *all* know that dragons dont exist, so what are you so upset about?"
>
> Who are you quoting? Cite your references when you quote.
"Why, you of course, Schnookums."
Teddy
Paul Morrison wrote:
> "As for the human having a problem, being a typist to a dragon is certainly a
> huge problem, and I am so glad you noticed and acknowledged that fact."
"HUMPH!! you think you have it bad, you should try being typist to a
Teddy with wings, I've never heard ANYONE complain so much when I make
*ONE* little typo, as I often tell her, if she wants to complain about
my typing she is more than welcome to do her OWN typing, she just waves
her paws at me and points" (winged-teddy's human)
Ignore her, she's just upset because I run the spelling checker over the
messages she types, before I send then, and SHE should try typing with
large furry paws and see how far she gets.
winged-teddy
--
...here be teddies
http://netspace.net.au/~dwebber/index.htm
http://www.powerup.com.au/~daltoff
BuRaTh8519
In article <5p0sro$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>, DarkWolf
<"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> writes:
> If a human adult (young or not) has problems pretending (or
>being, which ever the case may be) a dragon, then does a child have
>problems when they play with G.I. Joes, or pretending to be Coyboys and
>Indians, or pretending to be animals? If it's okay to pretend when a
>person is a child, then why is it so wrong to pretend when you're an
>adult?
>--
> DarkWolf the Ravager
"Bravo! DarkWolf, i wish more adults had that attitude, i get someof the
oddest looks when I mention that I'm a dragon fan!" A chromatic dragon
lands and shakes DarkWolf's hand. "I'm known as Burath and am very glad to
meet you!"
"Why can't the normals just let us do what we want?" The healer asks
aloud. "Why can't trolls just accept us, rather than fight with us?"
Burath, mate to the crystal dragoness Llian
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:55:24 GMT, dy...@verinet.com (Dymus) wrote:
> >sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
> >>wrote:
> >>>Eh? It's quite obvious really. I'm saying that it is not always time to
> >>>play. I'm also stating that there are many other things that motivate us,
> >>>not just Dragons.
> >>If you believe that you are really a dragon, then you're ALWAYS
> >>playing [make-believe].
> >And what of those that believe they are, are part of, or guided by a
> >benevolent spirit of a dragon? Are they playing make believe as well?
> There is a big difference between saying, "I believe I am guided by a
> dragon spirit", and saying, "I believe I am a dragon." I really
> wouldn't have much to say, and haven't said much, to those who claim
> to be led by a dragon spirit. It's a personal experience. But
> claiming to really, in real, actual life, be a dragon, is delusional.
I seem to recall you saying earlier that shapeshifters are real.
If it were possible to change your shape from human to animal, then why
is it not possible to be a dragon, or even for that matter, to change
from human to dragon?
Sigridir
Kirath <kir...@NOSPAM.rt.mipt.ru> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.3.95.97062...@frtk-campus-gw.mipt.ru>...
> On 27 Jun 1997, Sigridir wrote:
>
> >I never noticed that Pernese dragons were particularly happy. They've
> >always struck me as somewhat cool and aloof, except in a mating
> >flight......
>
> "The White Dragon", chapter 16, when F'nor arrives to bay. Same chapter,
> next morning. Need more?
>
I sit corrected in the presence of an expert.
Sigridir
DarkWolf
"Thank you," she says as she extends her claw to return the
"handshake". "I feel if you can't make a person understand within the
first few minutes of a conversation, then they'll never learn. I'm just
doing this for fun!" she giggles.
Paul Morrison
Sinder <sinder...@olywa.net> wrote:
> Look! There it goes! Right over there, next to that cloud. Do you
> see it? Right there! Look! Oh, you missed it. It's gone now. You
> totally missed the point and it was flying right by you.
"Ooh, pretty fluffy clouds. I think I can see a cloud that looks like Donald
Duck. Wow! Cool! Lekker!"
Wyrm
Greetings.
sinder...@olywa.net spake thus:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 97 21:29:59 GMT, p...@iafrica.com (Paul Morrison) wrote:
>>"This is a dragon newsgroup, please stick to the subject."
>Who are you quoting?
It's getting worse. It's eyes are beginning to pack up now.
I could quite definitely read the line informing all of who wrote the bit
of quoted text!
Greffindel
Rasha (erin...@nwlink.com) emitted:
: Sinder wrote:
: > What? Unable to come to terms with the fact that I might just be
: > smart? Maybe I do, maybe I don't.
: <cough> Smart wasn't the first word that popped into my mind, no...
Oh, Sinder's probably a bright enough kid in some ways; he's just
going to need a proctologist to find his head, that's all. And since
it's so swelled up, it seems like the process of extraction will be
somewhat painful...
: -- Erin of Amberhaven
Greffindel
In article <MPG.e20d6c1d...@news.supernews.com>
the wise Danae Fesler (hob...@no-spam.gigo.com) quoth thus:
>In article <33b9287e...@news.olywa.net>, sinder...@olywa.net
>says...
[ Basically:
Sinder: rediculous assertion
Everybody else: patient or incredulous refutations
Sinder: repeat rediculous assertion, with insult added
etc. ]
(Here's the nugget du jour:)
>> And I know you get more out of the newsgroup than simple escape. You
>> are also feeding your prurient interests, and escaping from your
>> marriage.
>> Those "virtual food fights" are my supporting evidence. It is well
>> out of place.
>"They are out of place to you but not to those who partiapate in them.
>The foodfights are a goodway to safely release pent up tensions with out
>injury"
See, they're evidence, but of what? Their existence doesn't seem to
prove that they are harmful, destructive, or anything else.
>> >> >I'm sorry you came to a group ostensibly about dragons and didn't find
>> >> >the blood, fire, and ripping flesh you were looking for; I'm sorry
>> >> >we've disappointed you.
>> >> If you were truly sorry, you'd do something about it.
Moral: Never be sarcastic with Sinder. He can't quite get his mind
around it.
>> >"Why should we turn this group into something it was never ment to be
>> >just to make you happy? If you want to see all the blood fire and
>> >ripping flesh why don't you create your own newsgroup and moderate it
>> >yourself make sure that you want happens there, Just don't try and force
>> >others to do what you want here!
>> :
>> Then you shouldn't say you're sorry. Never say "sorry", just don't
>> make the same mistake again. If you continue making the same
>> mistakes, then you obviously weren't sorry in the first place.
(Which is true. I'm glad afd is unappealing to... individuals... like
S., and I hope it stays that way for a long time. What I truly regret
is that S. is so *terribly* clueless, and that unfortunately is out of
my hands.)
>"I did not say I was sorry that was a quote I was following up on so that
>my reply would make sense and not be taken out of context and I still say
>you would do better to create your own newsgroup ."
Who else would be fool enough to post there? Then he'd *really* be
talking to himself.
>Gilraen Astar
>Dymus the Daring's mate
>Antarius' sister
>Adopted sister to many:)
--Greffindel the Plaid
/\/ \/ \/\
/ ( O O ) \ Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
/ */\_/\_/\__\_ --G. K. Chesterton
/ *( o \
|*\ --v-v-v-v |When you hear somebody declare that violence and brutality
\*\==\ are important, vital parts to life and that we need to keep them
\*\==\ around, you're hearing someone make excuses for him/herself.
.sig |*|==|
V2.0 |*|==| Would it save you any trouble if I just went mad now?
|*|==| --Arthur Dent
*To actually reply by mail, remove about four letters from the
Reply-To: address.* Ads, moneymaking opportunities, please mail to my
business address: stickit@sun-don't-shine.org
Greffindel
In article <5p2de4$t...@nntp02.primenet.com>
the wise Napoleon ("na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com) quoth thus:
>> Like it or not, you are having an extra-marital affair. It just
>> doesn't happen to be sexual. And the plain fact is, marriages that
>> are forced to suffer an extramarital affair rarely, if ever, survive.
>> Even if they do, they certainly don't continue in the same manner as
>> they did before; it is always worse.
> No offense or anything, I'm just curious, do you happen to have
>a P.h.d or something in Psychology? ]:8)
Didn't you know? Sinder's a televangelist! :)
Cerulean
ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel) wrote:
>(Which is true. I'm glad afd is unappealing to... individuals... like
>S., and I hope it stays that way for a long time. What I truly regret
>is that S. is so *terribly* clueless, and that unfortunately is out of
>my hands.)
You misspelled "in-duh-viduals" (cf. Dogbert's New Ruling Class).
That _is_ what you meant to say; I heard that meaningful pause.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease DC.D/? fs+h+ CB^P a$md+++l*WL++*g-e!?
<__,` Z / ( Art! > http://home.earthlink.net/~kpease/cerulean/index.html
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++C*D>+HM-P-R+T+++WZ?Sm RLAacdwd+e++f#h#i+p-?sm#
/ (7 ( uo6eJp ay+ u!^7aW--,,i,+s!w uwn+ne ay+ u! )!7oJj, LON op I,,
DarkWolf
Sinder wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 1997 21:33:00 -0700, DarkWolf
> <"na...@primenet.com"@MailHost.primenet.com> wrote:
> >> The individuals you cited actually *became* those things they
> >> represent. They *lived* those roles in every moment of their lives.
> > They believed they were whatever they were, but they did not
> >take a physical shape as whatever.
> :
> They believed it, and all the people believed it, what more do you
> need to define reality? Were you there to see that they didn't take
> physical shape? American Indians firmly believe in shape-shifting.
> Who the hell are you to claim otherwise?
> :
> >> (o) You do not serve any function in society, as a dragon, outside
> >> your little clique of dragon-friends (this newsgroup)
> > No, but in OUR society, we ARE dragons (or whatever) and our
> >form functions in many different uses. Society can define MANY things.
> >American society is completely different from Austrailian aboriginie
> >(ahem, spelling??) society, which is different from an animal society.
> >Here, we are talking of OUR society, our neo-dragonish society.
> :
> A system that closes itself off from outside influence is doomed to
> extinction.
> :
> >> (o) The image does not arise straight from the subconscious, but has
> >> been twisted to serve your own dysfunctional needs
> > To change the subject a smidgeon, what do YOU think of unicorns?
> >Tell me true, are they evil and deceitful in nature, or are they symbols
> >of good and purity? For in earlier times, the unicorn was a symbol of
> >destruction and agonizing death, which was worse than a dragon which was
> >originally a symbol of the elements, fire, water, earth, air, energy,
> >life, and death. But now, the unicorn is a symbol of peace. Why? Someone
> >wasn't too thrilled that a white horse with a horn was evil, and said
> >that it is now a good creature. Someone somewhere along the way did the
> >same thing with dragons.
> :
> Sure, we can digress a little. I believe that the unicorn is the
> symbol of pure, unbridled creative power. The power of creation,
> which is not monopolized by the christian god.
> :
> To a good person, the unicorn will appear good and help the good, for
> that is the nature of good. The an evil person, it will appear evil
> and destroy the evil, for that is the nature of evil.
> :
> >> (o) The image you have of dragons is not shared by all people; you
> >> yourself have repeatedly pointed out how all opinions of dragons vary,
> >> but to fulfil this role you must find the base form that ALL people
> >> agree with
> > Why should we do that here when something like that doesn't even
> >happen in real life?
> :
> Oh, yes, stuff like that DOES happen in real life, it's just that you
> are so out of touch with real life that you don't know it.
> :
> >There is not a single person who completely agrees
> >with someone else on anything. What I see in say.. a wolf.. isn't
> >necessarily what other people see. I see a majestic beast, others see
> >Satan's right hand man, or a ravenous beast. "...find the base form ...
> >ALL people agree with..."
> :
> You just asked a question and then answered it yourself.
> :
> >hmmm... I take it you've never seen The
> >Neverending Story, have you? Falcor is a luck-dragon, but to me he looks
> >like a Weiner-Dog with a white Labrador Retriever fur, head, and tail.
> >He strays WAAAAY off from the typical dragon, yet he is still classified
> >as a dragon. Even that evil black dragon from TNES 2 doesn't quite look
> >like a typical dragon, but still, he IS a dragon.
> :
> No, he's not classified as a dragon. He is a part of the RECENT
> history that I have been claiming has bastardized the true image of
> the dragon, among many other mythical images. Look what Disney did to
> Heracles ... my GOD!
> :
> >> (o) Nobody, NOBODY in this group LIVES their dragon persona; those of
> >> you who throw pies in here do not do so with such frequency, if at
> >> all, in real life; you do not tell other people that you honestly
> >> believe yourself to be a dragon
> > You haven't seen me at a BBSer's pizza party, have you? <evil
> >grin>
> :
> Sure, among your safe little group of friends (yet another clique).
> But do you throw pies at your boss for no reason? Or at strangers on
> the street? Do you use your "dragon magic" to interfere with a crime
> in progress, personally? Do you drive places or fly places?
> Hypocrite.
<wide toothy yawn> Sinder, until you have shown me good enough
to prove my beliefs wrong in my eyes and in the eyes of Jehovah, I'm
going to take a nap and ignore you. <closing eyes and falling asleep>.
Dymus
laur...@wyrm.demon.co.uk (Wyrm) wrote:
>>Hahaha! You sick sucker.
>I take great exception to this sort of language. However in my long
>experience it is always the case that people resort to insults when they
>are faced with something they either fear to comprehend or with a losing
>situation.
I think that perhaps Wyrm, he knows that he is outmatched
intellectually. Your observation, at least in my eyes, it a correct
one.
>Unfortunately, Sinder has not been reading his Jung too closely. Jung (and
>I have mentioned this before) accepts that an archetype can be limited to a
>single culture or race, and to a single time too.
And perhaps the archetype has changed enough within the last fifty
years to permanently change it.
(Line omitted due to indecency)
>I'm not going to answer anything when you decide to take that tone. All I
>can assume is that I've got so close to proving you wrong that you have to
>resort to profanity. Prove me wrong.
A task that takes intelligence and a firm base to stand upon, which
may prove to be difficult for him Wyrm.
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:55:10 GMT, dy...@verinet.com (Dymus) wrote:
>>sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>>>No no NO! You are suffering selective hearing again. I have
>>>SPECIFICALLY said, pretending to be a HAPPY dragon is unhealthy, and
>>>ESCAPISM is unhealthy.
>>But what if what is being practiced here is not escapism, but a health
>>diversion from the stresses of life.
>If I believed that at all, then I wouldn't be calling it escapism.
I suppose you're right. What you believe, is what you believe, that
doesn't make it law for anyone else howver.
>But anyone who has the 'nads to claim to be a REAL dragon is obviously
>suffering under some delusions.
Or using a metaphor. Think about it.
Dymus
>You think we don't know about this already? Okay, now do you want to
>take this discussion out of the "psychologically dysfunctional" arena
>and into the spiritual realm? Because I assure you, that's opening a
>whole 'nother can of whup-ass.
*grin* Erin, you are getting a little stubborn aren't ya?
*carefultacklepounce* I agree with the spititual part of it though,
The burden of proof gets a great deal harder.
>-- Erin of Amberhaven
Dymus
Rasha <erin...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> It is just as wrong and misguided as thinking that a gun is a toy. It
>> isn't. Neither is a dragon. So don't play around with it.
>Rasha grins, and adds another line to her sig...
>-- Rasha, Who Just Couldn't Pass This One Up
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> KEEP AWAY FROM SMALL CHILDREN--THIS DRAGON IS NOT A TOY!
>*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
*Dymus *grins* hugely* Now that I like.
Dymus
sinder...@olywa.net (Sinder) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:56:12 GMT, dy...@verinet.com (Dymus) wrote:
>>On the contrary, I do believe you are very intelligent myself sinder,
>>I just question your motives at times. Intelligence does not always
>>denote wisdom however either.
>:
>A PhD doesn't always denote wisdom, either.
Thanks for reiterating my point sinder. If you really need to know
what I meant then here it is. . . . I think you are intelligent, at
least somewhat, you lack common sense and social decency, at least in
this setting. For all I know you could be a decent person in real
life, just probably one like some of the friends I've had. You like
to be an antagonist and you like to be right all the time. If you
don't get your way you get angry and resort to name calling, becuase
of this Sinder I've chosen to mostly ignore you or use to for my own
amusement when necessary. If you have anything at all to say that
sounds cordial in tone and is an interesting topic for me to discuss I
will acknowledge your existence other than that you can insult me all
you like, I don't really care, I'm stronger than you in my own
self-esteem to know that you're just lashing to make up for your own
shortcomings and that your opinion doesn't matter a hill o' beans to
me or anyone who knows me. In essence sinder I find you annoying,
bigoted, self-righteous, antagonistic, and most of all irritating.
So, with that said, I'll be on my way.
Danae Fesler
In article <5pira6$8...@raven.cc.ukans.edu>, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu
says...
> Sinder: rediculous assertion
> Everybody else: patient or incredulous refutations
> Sinder: repeat rediculous assertion, with insult added
> >my reply would make sense and not be taken out of context and I still say
> >you would do better to create your own newsgroup ."
>
> Who else would be fool enough to post there? Then he'd *really* be
> talking to himself.
*huggles*
Sue Bogar
> >> Like it or not, you are having an extra-marital affair. It just
> >> doesn't happen to be sexual. And the plain fact is, marriages that
> >> are forced to suffer an extramarital affair rarely, if ever, survive.
> >> Even if they do, they certainly don't continue in the same manner as
> >> they did before; it is always worse.
sinder: question. what about those of us with mates here (whom we love
dearly) who aren't married in real life? or, in your usual fashion, are
you just going to declare us "sick"?
--shimmerwings wyndreamer
DarkWolf
Dymus wrote:
>
> Rasha <erin...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is just as wrong and misguided as thinking that a gun is a toy. It
> >> isn't. Neither is a dragon. So don't play around with it.
>
> >Rasha grins, and adds another line to her sig...
>
> >-- Rasha, Who Just Couldn't Pass This One Up
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> > KEEP AWAY FROM SMALL CHILDREN--THIS DRAGON IS NOT A TOY!
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Ahahahahahahahahahaha! <in hysterics>... <sigh> That was a good
one!!!
> *Dymus *grins* hugely* Now that I like.
>
> Dymus
> Mate of the lovely Gilraen Astar
> --
> dy...@verinet.com
> http://www.verinet.com/~dymus
>
> I'm not hyper, just lethargically challenged.
>
> Might as well input my Dragoncode here :)
> DC.D f+(choc) s++ h++ CQ a $- m++ d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L55t32 BSt e(var) g- i---! U
--
Dymus
Rexalc <dan...@flash.net> wrote:
>Dymus wrote:
>> >On 25 Jun 1997 17:45:40 GMT, ipsi...@eagle.cc.ukans.edu (Greffindel)
>> >wrote:
>> I suppose you could if you really wanted to, but *shrug* it would be
>> more effort than I would want to spend. And anyhow, I wasn't
>> suggesting anything to you by pointing out the error, I was trying to
>> make it clearer for others who read the post and might misinterpret
>> what you were trying to say. Please, before going off the handle,
>> think about things from my point of view.
>Why would he want to do that, Dymus? He is SINDER, and you disagree with
>him, so your point of view is obviously worthless.
I think I've sort of learned that now. *shrug* Tiz why I'm going to
ignore him, he got under my scales I used the tweezers and pulled him
out and now toss him in the trash to be forgotten and ignored. You
can't talk to someone who won't listen.
Wyrm
Greetings.
Sue Bogar <sbo...@gl.umbc.edu> spake thus:
>yes, but what we're asking is why CAN'T they be?
What should be being asked is:
Although there are few (maybe none at all) tales of 'happy' Dragons in
Mythology, why does that preclude them being 'happy' today.
Answer: Nothing.