Animal Planet's "Dragons"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Terry Austin, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness and
exclaimed:

> Mermaids, yes, quite. Dragons are the weakest link, source-wise.
>

Back in the '80s, Isaac Asimov's SF Mag ran a series of articles that tried
to figure out the origins of various myths. The author dug up some of the
earliest accounts of St. George and found that the dragon in those stories
had no wings, mostly kept to the water and breathed noxious fumes instead
of fire. He concluded that the beast in question was an errant salt-water
crocodile.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QcOdnWilFeKrXN7fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> No, not even remotely. Filter feeders capture and consume other organisms
> to sustain life (which is a more accurate definition of predation). Cows
> sometimes accidentally eat bugs with their food.

Is a BEAR a predator? They eat a vast assortment of stuff, and do not
require the consumption of other organisms to survive. They can survive
quite nicely on vegetation indefinitely, but they do eat meat when they can.
Classify the bear as either a predator or non-predator, if you please...

I assume you'd choose predator, and further refine your definition to allow
for the non-exclusivity of diet. You see, even YOUR definition is
incomplete, and it's an extension of the DICTIONARY definition!

Of course, we could just go back to a world where we know what we refer to
when we talk about predators, instead of being anal retentive cocks about
it. Or, we could visit those predatory cows. Your choice.... 😉

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B-ydnRr3UKN5TN7fRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QcOdnWilFeKrXN7fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>> No, not even remotely. Filter feeders capture and consume other
>> organisms
>> to sustain life (which is a more accurate definition of predation). Cows
>> sometimes accidentally eat bugs with their food.
>
> Is a BEAR a predator?

Yes.

> They eat a vast assortment of stuff, and do not
> require the consumption of other organisms to survive.

Irrelevant. Do they capture and consume other organisms to sustain life?
Yes.

> They can survive quite nicely on vegetation indefinitely,

So? That is completely irrelevant. Omnivores can certainly be predators.

> but they do eat meat when they can.
> Classify the bear as either a predator or non-predator, if you please...

Done.

> I assume you'd choose predator, and further refine your definition to
> allow
> for the non-exclusivity of diet.

That is not necessary. A creature either meets the test, or not.

> You see, even YOUR definition is incomplete,

No, you just suffer from a severe lack of critical thinking skills.

> Of course, we could just go back to a world where we know what we refer to
> when we talk about predators,

*We* do. You are the one with the problem, Humpty.

> instead of being anal retentive cocks about
> it. Or, we could visit those predatory cows.

No one can stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
>
> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=predator
> > > Well, there ya go. An organism that lives by preying on other
> organisms.
> > I
> > > highly doubt you'll find many creatures that are NOT predators. By
the
> > > dictionary definition, there is no limitation on how much predation
must
> > > occur in order for an animal to be considered predatory, meaning that
if
> > an
> > > animal consumes other organisms in pretty much any way, they are
> > predatory.
> >
> > Please, a cow is a predator?
>
> Of course it's not.
>
> > You are just making your self look stupid.
>
> Intentionally, I'm trying to show the absurdity of playing the definition
> game when it's not warranted.

You are doing a good job. One could even say you are a natural.

> > Oh, and it also goes in the face of your "Only things that eat big
things
> > are real predators" statement.
>
> Exactly. We both agree that cows are not predators, yet by the dictionary
> definition, cows can be defined as predators, regardless of the fact that
> their intention is to eat grass, not insects, thus making them technically
> predators. I am ONLY trying to point out the uselessness of the
definition
> game that people so dearly love to play around here.

Wrong.
This just goes to show that you are incapable of (or unwilling to?)
understanding a simple definition.

> > > Whomever that was decided to start getting all technical and stuff, so
I
> > was
> > > left with little choice.
> >
> > By technical and stuff you mean actually knowing what the words mean?
>
> Well, I can read the dictionary too, but we both know cows aren't
predators,
> don't we? So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to head back
> to rational-land? Or are we going to stay here in
> anal-retentive-definition-land?

In this case reading does not imply understanding.

> > Traditional and common use does not mean what you seem to think it
> means...
>
> We both agree that cows are not predators.

So far so good..

> I tend to think of TRUE
> predators as the ones that kill creatures of significant comparable size.
> An aardvark, for example, I would not consider a TRUE predator, despite
the
> fact that they devour thousands of living creatures each day.

Here is where you screw up. This concept of "TRUE predator" is entirely of
your own making and has little to do with how the word is actually used in
real life.

> > > This line of discussion is ENTIRELY of your own making.
> >
> > Yes yes, its everyone else's fault. You are completely free of blame.
> > Oh pity the poor victim.
>
> Does it SOUND like I want to do this?

Yes, otherwise why are you doing it?

> I've requested time and again for us
> to return to our respective senses, and return to a world where cows are
> simply grass eaters, not devouring beast predators from hell. You just
> don't want to do it because it would involve admitting that you're wrong,
on
> some level.

That or I actually know what the word predator means.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > >If you want to dispute that certain birds are
> > > considered predatory and others are generally not, despite the fact
that
> > > many birds do actually prey on insects and such, I guess we'll just
have
> > to
> > > stay here in the land where "predator" means any organism that
survives
> by
> > > preying on other organisms.
> >
> > Creatures that eat insects are not predators?
> > What about spiders?
>
> "Significant relative size"

You still have yet to explain where you get this size thing from.

> COWS that eat insects are not predators. INSECTS that eat insects ARE
> predators(and arachnids that eat insects are predators, too, since we're
in
> the land of anal-retentive specificity, I suppose I have to make sure that
I
> don't call a spider an insect, huh?)


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:l9M0e.5763$cg1.2145@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I tend to think of TRUE
> > predators as the ones that kill creatures of significant comparable
size.
> > An aardvark, for example, I would not consider a TRUE predator, despite
> the
> > fact that they devour thousands of living creatures each day.
>
> Here is where you screw up. This concept of "TRUE predator" is entirely of
> your own making and has little to do with how the word is actually used in
> real life.

Well, you see, there is the "essence of predator" and then there is the
accepted use of "predator". Technically, there are predatory microbes, but
from our perspective, they don't actually do much. Everyday use has plenty
of things being considered "predatory", and others not, and we, as a group
"know" what those types of things are. Dogs and Cats, predatory, Budgies
and Hamsters, not predatory. See what I'm getting at? Yes, budgies are
ferocious killers of worms and grubs and insects and whatnot, but predators?
Not so much, no.

I'm comfortable with using words in fashions that people are comfortable
using, even with the inaccuracies and misinterpretations that might come
with that, because more often than not, the only misinterpretations are
caused by intentional misinterpretation, as was the case here. Yes, often,
I simplify concepts, mainly because people are comfortable with the
simplification, and it makes it easier to communicate.

What often happens here is that people make realistic communication and
conversation almost impossible due to the level of nitpicking and demand for
attention to detail that just isn't required to have a chat. It's their
loss, I suppose.

> > Does it SOUND like I want to do this?
>
> Yes, otherwise why are you doing it?

OK, you got me there. 😉

> > I've requested time and again for us
> > to return to our respective senses, and return to a world where cows are
> > simply grass eaters, not devouring beast predators from hell. You just
> > don't want to do it because it would involve admitting that you're
wrong,
> on
> > some level.
>
> That or I actually know what the word predator means.

I do as well, but as noted, using such broad definitions of PREDATOR is not
useful in a conversation like we're having. It's useful in categorizing
animals, and as soon as I find a new species, I'll let you nitpick it to
death, honestly. But it's not useful when chatting.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns96239479FC12Btaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:

>> Er, no, until maybe ten years ago, we did not know how
>> bumblebees flew.
>
> If you say so. We've had a pretty good idea for a lot long than
> that, last I heard.
>

Possible. I just remember watching a show about then, on this
show they showed how bumblebees flew, something that had been
suspected, possibly, but never actually known till then.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in news:dYudnReJbobXwd7fRVn-
tg@comcast.com:

> NOT MY DEFINITION, CHIEF, read the thread.
>
>

I did, and I reiterate, And then you wonder why people think
you know nothing. You read, you regurgitate, but you don't understand.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in news:d1vneh$f5k$1
@knot.queensu.ca:

> I've lost count. How many times did you post the same comment?
>

I lost count too. Doing the reiterations for emphasis. Though I
guess I could have overdone it a wee bit. But considering I aimed this
at Jeff, maybe not enough.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns9623956D81784taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:

> I'm skeptical on a practical level, because hydrogen and helium
> leak through pretty much anything used to contain them. Anybody
> know of any real life examples?
>

I don't believe any such exists on our planet.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns9623A8340B4D7taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:

>> For real animals that retain hydrogen and helium...nah. Neither
>> of those gasses are held in by earth's gravity, so there wouldn't
>> be the chance for something to evolve a mechanism to retain them.
>>
> Well, there it is, then.
>
>

That does seem to make sense.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns96239586D89AFtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:

>> Hmmm, a water dragon. Yes, it flies through water, much
>> like a
>> penguin does, but cannot float. Hmmm....
>>
> That's make fire brathing a little less practical, though.
>
>

Steam, yeah, that's it! It breathes super heated steam!

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:y9GdnVZl3d9Sx97fRVn-pA@comcast.com:

>> The fact that people easily believe you are actually that stupid
>> does not speak particularly well of you.
>
> That would be a remarkably lucid point, if it actually had merit.
> The simple fact of the matter is that MOST people agree with my
> positions, j

Er, nope, totally wrong, in other words, And then you
wonder why people think you know nothing.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Ur-dnUrCVc25xt7fRVn-vQ@comcast.com:

> I agree with you, I'm playing a stupid little game, and I look
> like an idiot, because what I'm saying is totally useless and
> pointless.

Finally, he gets it.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:FrSdnW8liuMp_N7fRVn-tQ@comcast.com:

>> where adults can discuss things like adults, unfortunately, that
>> hasn't happened here in a while.
>
> Hint: it happens here *all the time*, just not when you were
> involved.
>

Heck, Terry and I just had one. Or two actually.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "Malachias Invictus" wrote
> > "Jeff Goslin" wrote
> > > "Matt Frisch" wrote
> > >> So whale sharks (to say nothing of actual whales) are not predators
> then?
> > >
> > > But of *COURSE* they are predators. They hunt the ever elusive krill,
> >
> > Yes, dumbass, filter feeders *are* considered predators.
>
> In the same way that COWS are predators. NEXT!!!

Cows don't live off the bugs they may accidentally eat, filter feeders DO
live off what they filter.
See the difference?

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_wN0e.451989$w62.345603@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Jeff Goslin" wrote
>> "Malachias Invictus" wrote
>> > "Jeff Goslin" wrote
>> > > "Matt Frisch" wrote
>> > >> So whale sharks (to say nothing of actual whales) are not predators
>> then?
>> > >
>> > > But of *COURSE* they are predators. They hunt the ever elusive
>> > > krill,
>> >
>> > Yes, dumbass, filter feeders *are* considered predators.
>>
>> In the same way that COWS are predators. NEXT!!!
>
> Cows don't live off the bugs they may accidentally eat, filter feeders DO
> live off what they filter.
> See the difference?

In fact, I believe it is the case that cows are incapable of digesting bugs.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote

> "David Alex Lamb" wrote
>
> > Fish-eating birds like herons aren't generally considered raptors. I
> don't
> > know the name of the class they're part of. This example occurred
earlier
> in
> > the thread; did you miss it?
>
> Nope, but it's not terribly "predatory" to snag a fish who isn't even
aware
> of your prescence.

How is this different from how raptors hunt?

> I've never considered them to be true predators, per se,
> despite the fact that they do "hunt".

Right, even though they do everything needed to be a predator, Jeff does not
think they are predators.

>I wonld consider them predators in
> the same way I consider "fisherman" to be predatory, which is basically
what
> herons do.

How about Killer Whales that eat fish, are they predators? I wouldn't be
surprised if the size difference is about the same as birds that eat
insects.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > > I tend to think of TRUE
> > > predators as the ones that kill creatures of significant comparable
> size.
> > > An aardvark, for example, I would not consider a TRUE predator,
despite
> > the
> > > fact that they devour thousands of living creatures each day.
> >
> > Here is where you screw up. This concept of "TRUE predator" is entirely
of
> > your own making and has little to do with how the word is actually used
in
> > real life.
>
> Well, you see, there is the "essence of predator" and then there is the
> accepted use of "predator". Technically, there are predatory microbes,

Yes, there are.

> but
> from our perspective, they don't actually do much. Everyday use has
plenty
> of things being considered "predatory", and others not, and we, as a group
> "know" what those types of things are.

We who understand what the word means. You who do not.

> Dogs and Cats, predatory, Budgies
> and Hamsters, not predatory. See what I'm getting at? Yes, budgies are
> ferocious killers of worms and grubs and insects and whatnot, but
predators?
> Not so much, no.

Um, yes. Very much so.

> I'm comfortable with using words in fashions that people are comfortable
> using, even with the inaccuracies and misinterpretations that might come
> with that, because more often than not, the only misinterpretations are
> caused by intentional misinterpretation, as was the case here.

So you admit you were intentionally misinterpreting the word?

>Yes, often,
> I simplify concepts, mainly because people are comfortable with the
> simplification,

That or you are just simple.

>and it makes it easier to communicate.

Obviously not.

> What often happens here is that people make realistic communication and
> conversation almost impossible due to the level of nitpicking and demand
for
> attention to detail that just isn't required to have a chat. It's their
> loss, I suppose.

How is it nitpicking to use a word correctly?
You MADE UP the part about size of prey being a requirement for being a
predator.

> > > I've requested time and again for us
> > > to return to our respective senses, and return to a world where cows
are
> > > simply grass eaters, not devouring beast predators from hell. You
just
> > > don't want to do it because it would involve admitting that you're
> wrong,
> > on
> > > some level.
> >
> > That or I actually know what the word predator means.
>
> I do as well,

Then why do you use it incorrectly?

> but as noted, using such broad definitions of PREDATOR is not
> useful in a conversation like we're having.

Actually its very useful as people generally don't want to have to guess
what definitions you make up each time you say something.

> It's useful in categorizing
> animals, and as soon as I find a new species, I'll let you nitpick it to
> death, honestly. But it's not useful when chatting.

Translation: If I use the word as it is defined then my comment that "most
predatory birds use silent approaches that rely on wings that are more or
less stationary until the very last moment." is utter bullshit.

Google never forgets.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iWN0e.452124$w62.259697@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I'm comfortable with using words in fashions that people are comfortable
> > using, even with the inaccuracies and misinterpretations that might come
> > with that, because more often than not, the only misinterpretations are
> > caused by intentional misinterpretation, as was the case here.
>
> So you admit you were intentionally misinterpreting the word?

Intentionally SIMPLIFYING it, yes. Not misinterpreting it.

> >and it makes it easier to communicate.
>
> Obviously not.

Well I guess that depends on the size of the stick up the person's ass with
whom I'm speaking, now doesn't it??

> How is it nitpicking to use a word correctly?

The word was used to denote creatures commonly associated with predation,
not the dictionary definition. The stick in the ass of the person with whom
I speak is QUITE large, isn't it? That would affect the ease of
communication I suppose.

> You MADE UP the part about size of prey being a requirement for being a
> predator.

Yep, it was a ballparking measure.

> > > That or I actually know what the word predator means.
> >
> > I do as well,
>
> Then why do you use it incorrectly?

See below.

> > but as noted, using such broad definitions of PREDATOR is not
> > useful in a conversation like we're having.
>
> Actually its very useful as people generally don't want to have to guess
> what definitions you make up each time you say something.

You're not much interested in speaking with people who will return the
favor, are you?

> > It's useful in categorizing
> > animals, and as soon as I find a new species, I'll let you nitpick it to
> > death, honestly. But it's not useful when chatting.
>
> Translation: If I use the word as it is defined then my comment that "most
> predatory birds use silent approaches that rely on wings that are more or
> less stationary until the very last moment." is utter bullshit.

Honestly, if you want to talk to me, you have to speak a common language. I
don't speak nitpick, and you don't speak common use. We're going to have to
work on our communication skills a bit before we talk again.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HISdnYg5OK1YMt7fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> "John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:iWN0e.452124$w62.259697@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > I'm comfortable with using words in fashions that people are
>> > comfortable
>> > using, even with the inaccuracies and misinterpretations that might
>> > come
>> > with that, because more often than not, the only misinterpretations are
>> > caused by intentional misinterpretation, as was the case here.
>>
>> So you admit you were intentionally misinterpreting the word?
>
> Intentionally SIMPLIFYING it, yes. Not misinterpreting it.

No, you were clearly making up some bullshit Humpty Dumpty version of the
word. Everyone else here seems to be happy with the *actual* definition of
the word.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W_Kdnb5PNLvtaN7fRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Bd6dnVOzrLDrRd7fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>> > Is a BEAR a predator?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > They eat a vast assortment of stuff, and do not
>> > require the consumption of other organisms to survive.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Do they capture and consume other organisms to sustain life?
>> Yes.
>
> Well, it's not required in any way.

Are you sure about that? Feel free to prove it.

> Are they therefore sustaining their lives by predation? Nope.

This is the part where I point out your error in reading comprehension. Do
they capture and consume other organisms to sustain life? Yes. Does this
definition mean that they *must* do this regularly to sustain life? No. A
species either does, or doesn't. The fact that lions in the zoo can be fed
horseburger, and thus never capture or consume an organism while they are
there does not magically transform lions into non-predators.

> They do not require the sustenance provided by
> other organisms in order to sustain life.

*Requiring* it is not part of the definition. Humans in a hunter-gatherer
society do not need to hunt, either. They are still predators.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:53:47 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96218E48CE50Dtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
>
> >>> We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly"
> >>> that shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..
> >>
> >> Up until recently, we did not understand how it happened, it's
> >> true.
> >
> > Actually, we've understood it for quit a while. It just wasn't the
> > same as an airfoil on an airplane.
> >
>
> Er, no, until maybe ten years ago, we did not know how
> bumblebees flew. That, however, says more about the limits of
> scientific knowledge than anything else.

Seeing as I heard the bumblebee thing given as an example of how
things have progressed back in the 80s, we've known how they fly
somewhat longer than 10-odd years.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:gdk641h1gg6rqm8gr2jhoblau2prk93uhu@4ax.com:

> Seeing as I heard the bumblebee thing given as an example of how
> things have progressed back in the 80s, we've known how they fly
> somewhat longer than 10-odd years.
>
>

Pretty sure it was in the 90's, but, hey, I could have erred.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:41:57 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> That's make fire brathing a little less practical, though.

Use steam then. If bombadier beetles can manage it any decent dragon
should be able to. Of course, a steam blast or jet will have about
zero range in water, so it would only be useful on nosy sailors.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."