[R] Reverse annotation, rat king
Stig M. Valstad
Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
--
Stig M. Valstad
Never trust anyone who wishes you were dead. -- Timothy Hunter
Danny
<sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no>, wrote the following stuff about [R] Reverse
annotation, rat king:
>http://npc.comicgenesis.com/d/20050308.html
>Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
Nope, Rat Kings are real (or at least, real myth), which is scary enough as it
is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king
Seeya. Danny.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) grovers (dash) sa (dot) com
Stig M. Valstad
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:33:01 +0000 (UTC), "Stig M. Valstad"
><sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no>, wrote the following stuff about [R] Reverse
> annotation, rat king:
>
>>http://npc.comicgenesis.com/d/20050308.html
>>Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
>
> Nope, Rat Kings are real (or at least, real myth), which is scary enough as it
> is...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king
I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
--
Stig M. Valstad
"He taught me everything, withouth him I would be normal." - Kryten
Pudde Fjord
> On 2006-08-31, Danny <da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:33:01 +0000 (UTC), "Stig M. Valstad"
>> <sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no>, wrote the following stuff about [R] Reverse
>> annotation, rat king:
>>
>>> http://npc.comicgenesis.com/d/20050308.html
>>> Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
>> Nope, Rat Kings are real (or at least, real myth), which is scary enough as it
>> is...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king
>
> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
>
novel, so at least his readers has known of the legend.
Pudde.
Andy Davison
> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
A lot of people I know knew what it was so I would have to say quite well
known if not very well known. There is an allusion to the ratking in the
Michael Dibdin book of the same name though in this case it is comparing a
gang of thieves to the mythical beast.
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou [dot] ukfsn [dot] org
Richard Bos
> On 2006-08-31, Danny <da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:33:01 +0000 (UTC), "Stig M. Valstad"
> >
> >>http://npc.comicgenesis.com/d/20050308.html
> >>Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
> >
> > Nope, Rat Kings are real (or at least, real myth), which is scary enough as it
> > is...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king
>
> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
Beg to differ. Wikipedia claims that it's a myth, but other (RL) sources
say it's real, and I know whom I'd rather believe. And I, for one, knew
about rat kings well before TAMAHER.
Richard
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
Actually Wikipedia says "most researchers" believe it to be a
myth, because no scientific explanation has been found[1],
before describing a number of documented rat-kings.
[1]Pterry demolishes the explanation I'm familiar with in
TAMAHER.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
Lesley Weston
sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no wrote on 01/09/2006 9:21 AM:
> On 2006-08-31, Danny <da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:33:01 +0000 (UTC), "Stig M. Valstad"
>> <sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no>, wrote the following stuff about [R] Reverse
>> annotation, rat king:
>>
>>> http://npc.comicgenesis.com/d/20050308.html
>>> Would this maybe be inspired by TAMAHER?
>>
>> Nope, Rat Kings are real (or at least, real myth), which is scary enough as
>> it
>> is...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king
>
> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
Not very well known to whom? I've come across it in several places.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Terry Pratchett
<daibhidc...@aol.com> writes
>
>Actually Wikipedia says "most researchers" believe it to be a
>myth, because no scientific explanation has been found[1],
>before describing a number of documented rat-kings.
>
Rat kings are real. I have a photo of one. What's at issue is how they
come to exist. In the absence of an alternative (I haven't yet seen a
'natural' explanation that holds up) the 'humans are cruel bastards'
hypothesis wins the day.
--
Terry Pratchett
The Stainless Steel Cat
Andy Davison <andy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Friday 01 September 2006 17:21, Stig M. Valstad wrote:
>
>> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
>> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
>
>A lot of people I know knew what it was so I would have to say quite well
>known if not very well known. There is an allusion to the ratking in the
>Michael Dibdin book of the same name though in this case it is comparing a
>gang of thieves to the mythical beast.
There was also one in the second part of The Ballad of Halo Jones by Moore
& Gibson.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Play it again, Yortlebluzzgubbly.
Arthur Hagen
> In message <Xns9832EBF2...@130.133.1.4>, Daibhid Ceanaideach
> <daibhidc...@aol.com> writes
>>
>> Actually Wikipedia says "most researchers" believe it to be a
>> myth, because no scientific explanation has been found[1],
>> before describing a number of documented rat-kings.
>
> Rat kings are real. I have a photo of one.
Is your photo of attested live specimens? The problem is that rat kings are
usually dead, and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that they existed
in that state before their deaths.
> What's at issue is how
> they come to exist. In the absence of an alternative (I haven't yet
> seen a 'natural' explanation that holds up) the 'humans are cruel
> bastards' hypothesis wins the day.
If not cruel, seeking attention. While Brits add old human teeth to a
fossilised jawbone (or the other way around), the Germans might tie dead
rats together.
My guess is that it started out as a convenient way to carry dead rats.
Onna stick.
Regards,
--
*Art
8'FED
> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
In the supposition that Pterry's books make any significant difference
as to which myths are widely known, perhaps, be an element of wishful
thinking on your part?
Adrian
(who got the world-on-turtle thing from Asimov, IIRC)
Stig M. Valstad
I'd rather believe whoever doesn't claim that animals get
magical powers just from getting their tails tangled. The
reverse annotation was about a rat king with magical power
much like the one in TAMAHER, not just a group of animals
with their tails stuck together.
> And I, for one, knew
> about rat kings well before TAMAHER.
Some well-read afpers knowing about something doesn't mean
it is well known among the general population. I certainly
didn't get the impression that it was well known by the
time TAMAHER got out.
--
Stig M. Valstad
Emphasis is putting more distress on one word than another.
English as she is thaught
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Stig M. Valstad" <sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no>
I have no idea if it's well-known or not. It's one of the
things I know about without knowing where I heard it, and I
therefore assumed it was part of what Pterry calls "white
knowledge".
Stig M. Valstad
> Stig M. Valstad wrote:
>
>> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
>> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
>
> In the supposition that Pterry's books make any significant difference
> as to which myths are widely known, perhaps, be an element of wishful
> thinking on your part?
Why should this be wishful thinking? It doesn't matter to
me where the author of Tales of the Questor found his
inspiration. I just found what I thought was a nifty
possible connection on what seemed to me to be a little
known myth about a creature with powerful magic. But, as
this thread has shown, I was apparently the only person
who didn't know about rat kings and their magic before
TAMAHER.
Just forget the stupid hick ever opened his editor, OK?
Furrfu.
> Adrian
> (who got the world-on-turtle thing from Asimov, IIRC)
Even I had heard about the turtle long before I had heard
about Discworld, that really is one of the widest known
mythologies.
--
Stig M. Valstad
"P[o]ison yourself, and you'll be glad on it arterwards." Weller sr.
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Stig M. Valstad wrote:
>>
>>> I knew it was a real myth. It just was not a wery well known
>>> myth before Pterry put it into TAMAHER.
>>
>> In the supposition that Pterry's books make any significant difference
>> as to which myths are widely known, perhaps, be an element of wishful
>> thinking on your part?
>
> Why should this be wishful thinking?
Because a fan might want an author to be influential.
> Just forget the stupid hick ever opened his editor, OK?
> Furrfu.
You're taking this /way/ too personally.
>> Adrian
>> (who got the world-on-turtle thing from Asimov, IIRC)
>
> Even I had heard about the turtle long before I had heard
> about Discworld, that really is one of the widest known
> mythologies.
I said nothing which implicates otherwise.
Adrian.
Hendrik Schober
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <Xns9832EBF2...@130.133.1.4>, Daibhid Ceanaideach
> > <daibhidc...@aol.com> writes
> > >
> > > Actually Wikipedia says "most researchers" believe it to be a
> > > myth, because no scientific explanation has been found[1],
> > > before describing a number of documented rat-kings.
> >
> > Rat kings are real. I have a photo of one.
>
> Is your photo of attested live specimens? The problem is that rat kings are
> usually dead, and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that they existed
> in that state before their deaths.
You mean aside from this
"The "rat king" which was discovered in 1963 by the farmer
P. van Nijnatten at Rucphen (Netherlands)as published by
cryptozoologist M. Schneider consists of seven rats. X-ray
images show formations of callus at the fractures of their
tails which proves that these animals must have survived an
extended period of time under those circumstances and also
been fed by fellow rats. The number of adult animals among
rat kings supports this theory, too."
which I took from Wikipedia?
> > What's at issue is how
> > they come to exist. In the absence of an alternative (I haven't yet
> > seen a 'natural' explanation that holds up) the 'humans are cruel
> > bastards' hypothesis wins the day.
>
> If not cruel, seeking attention. While Brits add old human teeth to a
> fossilised jawbone (or the other way around), the Germans might tie dead
> rats together.
It's one of our least cruel hobbies, actually. :)
> My guess is that it started out as a convenient way to carry dead rats.
> Onna stick.
see above
Schobi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <Xns9832EBF2...@130.133.1.4>, Daibhid
>>> Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Actually Wikipedia says "most researchers" believe it to be a
>>>> myth, because no scientific explanation has been found[1],
>>>> before describing a number of documented rat-kings.
>>>
>>> Rat kings are real. I have a photo of one.
>>
>> Is your photo of attested live specimens? The problem is that rat
>> kings are usually dead, and there doesn't appear to be much evidence
>> that they existed in that state before their deaths.
>
> You mean aside from this
> "The "rat king" which was discovered in 1963 by the farmer
> P. van Nijnatten at Rucphen (Netherlands)as published by
> cryptozoologist M. Schneider consists of seven rats. X-ray
> images show formations of callus at the fractures of their
> tails which proves that these animals must have survived an
> extended period of time under those circumstances and also
> been fed by fellow rats. The number of adult animals among
> rat kings supports this theory, too."
> which I took from Wikipedia?
Where's the live specimens there?
Is "cryptozoologist" now a protected title where you have to study biology,
forensics and radiology, and be able to judge animal X-rays? Or is it
perhaps a person whose profession relies on people believing in fable
creatures?
This is a *claim* from a non-scientific source, not a verification.
The "also been fed by fellow rats" seems to be pure guesswork, and even
stating it as fact drops any kind of credibility the other statements might
have had.
Regards,
--
*Art
Hendrik Schober
> [...]
> The "also been fed by fellow rats" seems to be pure guesswork, and even
> stating it as fact drops any kind of credibility the other statements might
> have had.
You know, Art, I posted this to point out that the very
website that was said here to call it a myth OTOH shows
some evidence that it /might/ not be a myth only. You
took it as an thing to fight over.
Poor soul. Why don't you plonk me?
Len Oil
> Hendrik Schober <Spam...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> You mean aside from this
>> "The "rat king" which was discovered in 1963 by the farmer
>> P. van Nijnatten at Rucphen (Netherlands)as published by
>> cryptozoologist M. Schneider consists of seven rats. X-ray
>> images show formations of callus at the fractures of their
>> tails which proves that these animals must have survived an
>> extended period of time under those circumstances and also
>> been fed by fellow rats. The number of adult animals among
>> rat kings supports this theory, too."
>> which I took from Wikipedia?
>
> Where's the live specimens there?
Reading nothing but the post (i.e. not the surrounding parts of the
Wikipedia article, and certainly not any of the ascribed sources for the
above information) I would interpret the "formations of callus at the
fractures of their tails" part as essentially being shorthand for "After
the tails were entangled [naturally or otherwise] the rats must have
been alive long enough for the callused 'joints' to have formed in the
area of the attendant fractures that would have been involved.
> This is a *claim* from a non-scientific source, not a verification.
Agreed on that point, of course (one reason I'm not wading in with "Of
course it's true!", just "I think you missed some of the implications of
the claim...").
> The "also been fed by fellow rats" seems to be pure guesswork, and even
> stating it as fact drops any kind of credibility the other statements
> might have had.
This also rang small alarm-bells in my head. I'd assumed that a
non-included item mentioned how this was a "discovered rat-king" within
a genuine/natural rat nest, as opposed to found in a location where
people may have placed it. In those circumstances, the rats that had
obviously been alive long enough to develop the calluses mentioned must
have managed to sustain themselves somehow, and /perhaps/ the only
logical explanation would be the provision of food by their brethren,
but there's a few 'ifs' contained in making those assumptions, obviously.
Again, this is without having the context of the above snippet. Hence
the alarm bells being small and not otherwise worth mentioning (unless I
was to personally wish to use the above information as a source, rather
than just read it in passing).