Animal Planet's "Dragons"

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

Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.

Any thoughts?

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
457 answers Last reply
More about animal planet dragons
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    > news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    >
    > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
    and
    > >> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
    behind it
    > >> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
    bladder/fire
    > >> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    > >>
    > >> Any thoughts?
    > >>
    > >
    > > I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
    weeks ago
    > > called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
    sure
    > > that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
    lift to
    > > fly.
    > >
    > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    possibly
    > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

    Yeah, magically-assisted flight is so much more plausable.

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

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:

    >
    > Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
    > I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
    > is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
    > breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >
    > Any thoughts?
    >

    I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
    called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
    that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
    fly.

    --
    http://www.rexx.co.uk

    To email me, visit the site.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:

    > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
    >> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
    >> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
    >> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts?
    >>
    >
    > I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
    > called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
    > that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
    > fly.
    >
    Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
    fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:21:19 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    >news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    >
    >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
    >>> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
    >>> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
    >>> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >>>
    >>> Any thoughts?
    >>>
    >>
    >> I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
    >> called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
    >> that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
    >> fly.
    >>
    >Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
    >fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

    [lurk off]
    I like how they neglected to mention the fact that if dragons were real,
    there's no need for them to fly or breathe fire - after all, the human
    imagination tends to run wild when faced with the unknown, and creatures
    as mundane as other humans have been said to breathe fire (literally).

    Anyway, if it was up to me, I think I'd go for something more "normal"
    than hydrogen to power flame-breathing; methane is by far more common.

    Also, I notice that they didn't mention my pet theory on the origins of
    dragons: I think someone saw some largish dinosaur fossils somewhere - a
    hillside or a cave or something - and bang, instant mythology. I think
    it would explain why all the cultures mentioned have dragon myths -
    after all, fossils are found pretty much everywhere.
    [lurk on]
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    > news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
    >>>I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
    >>>is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
    >>>breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >>>
    >>>Any thoughts?
    >>>
    >>
    >>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
    >>called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
    >>that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
    >>fly.
    >>
    >
    > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
    > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

    Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons got
    pretty big.

    - Ron ^*^
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > possibly
    > > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

    (missed the original post, sorry)
    There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
    of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
    35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
    discovered, but still, that's pretty big.

    Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as huge
    and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have been.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
    > news:POG%d.66229$7z6.46090@lakeread04:
    > > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > >> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    > >> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The
    wife
    > >>>>and I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
    > >>>>behind it is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the
    flight
    > >>>>bladder/fire breath binary system and the dual-dive mating
    ritual.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Any thoughts?
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
    weeks
    > >>>ago called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good,
    though
    > >>>I'm sure that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it
    > >>>enough lift to fly.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > >> possibly fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    > >
    > > Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but
    pteranodons
    > > got pretty big.
    > >
    > I didn't watch the show in question, but the commercials looked like
    they
    > were talking about the usual - quite large - size from myth and
    legend.
    >

    Yep. The show was built around the concept of applying real world
    science - or an approximation thereof - to explain the most common
    traits attributed to dragons in myth and popular culture, as well as
    likely habits. Thus, the flying dragons were big, but with latticed
    skeletons like birds, and had hydrogen-filled bladders that provided
    extra lift. The hydrogen, when coupled with a catalyst such as platinum
    (which the dragons clawed out of rock and ingested) also provided fuel
    for the dragon's breath.

    Probably bullshit, but inventive bullshit for all that.

    --
    Jay Knioum
    The Mad Afro
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > > Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    > > news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    > >
    > >
    > >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
    and
    > >>>I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
    behind it
    > >>>is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
    bladder/fire
    > >>>breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    > >>>
    > >>>Any thoughts?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
    weeks ago
    > >>called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
    sure
    > >>that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
    lift to
    > >>fly.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    possibly
    > > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons
    got
    > pretty big.

    The female dragon in the ice cave seemed to be about the size of a
    large horse.

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

    "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1111439078.024656.310050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    >
    > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    >> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
    > and
    >> >> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
    > behind it
    >> >> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
    > bladder/fire
    >> >> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >> >>
    >> >> Any thoughts?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
    > weeks ago
    >> > called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
    > sure
    >> > that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
    > lift to
    >> > fly.
    >> >
    >> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > possibly
    >> fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > Yeah, magically-assisted flight is so much more plausable.
    >
    Not in a TV show that pretends to be based on history.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
    news:POG%d.66229$7z6.46090@lakeread04:

    >
    >
    > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
    >> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
    >>>>and I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
    >>>>behind it is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
    >>>>bladder/fire breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
    >>>>
    >>>>Any thoughts?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks
    >>>ago called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though
    >>>I'm sure that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it
    >>>enough lift to fly.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    >> possibly fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons
    > got pretty big.
    >
    I didn't watch the show in question, but the commercials looked like they
    were talking about the usual - quite large - size from myth and legend.

    And the larger pteranodons were gliders, not flyers.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

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

    >> No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    >> possibly
    >> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > (missed the original post, sorry)
    > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
    > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
    > wingspan over 35 feet.

    Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.

    > I don't know if that's the largest flying
    > creature ever discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
    >
    > Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as
    > huge and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have
    > been.
    >
    Indeed. Spindly, and fragile. Not ferocious.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    > > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
    > > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
    > > wingspan over 35 feet.
    >
    > Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.

    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Pteranodon.shtml

    I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
    precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that they were
    able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of terrain. That a given
    animal's normal locomotion is gliding does not mean that it was incapable of
    short bursts of powered flight. Heck, there are plenty of examples of
    normally gliding birds and other animals that have very precise control of
    their paths due to short bursts of powered flight. Predatory birds like
    hawks and such are often like this.

    However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that I
    think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been able to
    fly.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    I
    > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    able to
    > fly.
    >

    Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...


    We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
    shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..


    Also, take a look, how did numerous civilizations that had no contact
    with each other come up with the dragon with similar attributes?
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    lestermosley@gmail.com wrote:

    >We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
    >shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

    There's people who still believe that little myth?
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    > "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    > news:jKWdnTeAYObfwaLfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
    >
    > >> No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > >> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > >> possibly
    > >> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    > >
    > > (missed the original post, sorry)
    > > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
    > > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
    > > wingspan over 35 feet.
    >
    > Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.
    >
    > > I don't know if that's the largest flying
    > > creature ever discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
    > >
    > > Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as
    > > huge and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have
    > > been.
    > >
    > Indeed. Spindly, and fragile. Not ferocious.
    >

    The dragons I saw on the program were indeed more spindly than I imagined
    dragons to be.

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

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:42:51 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > > > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > > possibly
    > > > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > (missed the original post, sorry)
    > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
    > of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
    > 35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
    > discovered, but still, that's pretty big.

    IIRC the pteradon was 'only' about 20' across the wings. The bigger
    quetzlacoatl (sp for sure) did have a ~35' wingspan. While it may have
    been a glider, last I heard this was not certain as it seemed to be a
    scavenger in an area with few high objects to glide off.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    > I
    > > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    > able to
    > > fly.
    > >
    >
    > Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    > get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...

    Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
    bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
    snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
    to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
    such time that you can't fly.

    Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
    ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
    They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
    to the design.

    > 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. Now we
    know how such a small wing can lift a relatively large insect.
    http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000913.html
    about halfway down, "Bumblebee Flight Possible", they use vortex
    manipulation to get around.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:9N2dnQo-fPvw56LfRVn-3g@comcast.com:

    > "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    >> > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
    >> > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon,
    >> > with a wingspan over 35 feet.
    >>
    >> Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat
    >> ground.
    >
    > http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Pteranodon.sh
    > tml
    >
    > I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
    > precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that
    > they were able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of
    > terrain.

    Perhaps. Color me skeptical, however.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96215863A7E42taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    > > I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
    > > precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that
    > > they were able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of
    > > terrain.
    >
    > Perhaps. Color me skeptical, however.

    Well, even the largest modern gliders are able to take off under their own
    power(condors, vultures, albatross, eg). I would think that such a large
    creature as a Pteranodon would be pretty ungainly and awkward when it did
    take off, but I imagine it would HAVE to be able to power it's own flight
    for those times where it lands on flat ground. Otherwise it would have to
    walk to somewhere to take off from, or wait for a wind strong enough to lift
    it off.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in
    news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    >
    >> However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    > I
    >> think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    > able to
    >> fly.
    >>
    >
    > Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    > get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...
    >
    For definitions of "they" that are restricted to "people who don't actually
    know anything about the subject."
    >
    > We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
    > shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

    Complete and utter bullshit, of course, and only a retard could possibly
    not know that. The original comment was on the limitations of aeronautical
    science at the time, not the mysteriousness of bumblebees.
    >
    >
    > Also, take a look, how did numerous civilizations that had no contact
    > with each other come up with the dragon with similar attributes?
    >
    You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:49:34 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    >> I
    >> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    >> able to
    >> > fly.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    >> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...
    >
    >Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    >integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
    >bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
    >snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
    >to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
    >such time that you can't fly.
    >
    >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
    >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
    >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
    >to the design.

    <delurk>

    Not quite. Insects have been larger over the course of Earth's
    history than they are now, quite larger. However, insects have a
    passive respiratory system. If they get larger, it's more difficult
    to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through pores in the exoskeleton.
    The large size of prehistoric insects is thought to be related to a
    higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.

    </delurk>

    Crazy Chick
    DM- Kingdoms of Kalamar
    Player- Midnight, WoD, Forgotton Realms
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In <9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

    >"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    >> I
    >> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    >> able to
    >> > fly.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    >> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...

    >Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    >integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
    >bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
    >snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
    >to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
    >such time that you can't fly.

    >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
    >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
    >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
    >to the design.

    - given current conditions.

    There were "dragonflies" with wings a couple of feet across in the
    Carboniferous, but the atmosphere may have been denser then.

    >> 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. Now we
    >know how such a small wing can lift a relatively large insect.
    >http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000913.html
    >about halfway down, "Bumblebee Flight Possible", they use vortex
    >manipulation to get around.

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


    --
    Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com:

    > "Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not
    >> > that
    >> I
    >> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    >> able to
    >> > fly.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    >> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the
    >> 747...
    >
    > Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    > integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of.
    > If the bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold
    > before snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater
    > muscle mass to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you
    > even heavier until such time that you can't fly.
    >
    > Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the
    > largest ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an
    > exoskeleton increases with the surface area it covers, and insects
    > have reached a critical point at which they cannot make more muscle
    > inside their exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to
    > increase in size. They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it.
    > It is a physical limit to the design.
    >
    >> 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.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
    Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    >integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of.

    This part is certainly true

    >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
    >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
    >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
    >to the design.

    The limit I heard about was that they rely on diffusion of oxygen inward from
    the skin, rather than having lungs, and were limited by how far the oxygen had
    to move. However, I was also under the impression that Carboniferous era
    (flying) insects *were* considerably larger than at present, and that a higher
    percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere may have allowed the larger size.

    Once again, no cites. Sorry.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 21 Mar 2005 19:10:11 -0800, "madafro@sbcglobal.net"
    <madafro@sbcglobal.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Yep. The show was built around the concept of applying real world
    > science - or an approximation thereof - to explain the most common
    > traits attributed to dragons in myth and popular culture, as well as
    > likely habits. Thus, the flying dragons were big, but with latticed
    > skeletons like birds, and had hydrogen-filled bladders that provided
    > extra lift. The hydrogen, when coupled with a catalyst such as platinum
    > (which the dragons clawed out of rock and ingested) also provided fuel
    > for the dragon's breath.

    Sounds like it's based on _The Flight of the Dragons_(1981), by Peter
    Dickinson.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:56:59 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    >news:Xns96215863A7E42taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    >> > I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
    >> > precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that
    >> > they were able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of
    >> > terrain.
    >>
    >> Perhaps. Color me skeptical, however.
    >
    >Well, even the largest modern gliders are able to take off under their own
    >power(condors, vultures, albatross, eg).

    Those are not gliders, they are fliers.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:o58141hv93j0lv8f92jkper9nh4lsig210@4ax.com...
    > >Well, even the largest modern gliders are able to take off under their
    own
    > >power(condors, vultures, albatross, eg).
    >
    > Those are not gliders, they are fliers.

    Well, then, I guess we'll have to very clearly define the difference between
    a flier and a glider, in animal terms. To my understanding, flying animals
    that spend hours barely moving their wings are considered to use "gliding"
    as their standard means of locomotion, despite the fact that they can take
    off under their own power(ie powered flight). By your definition, only
    animals that LITERALLY glide would be referred to as gliders, such as flying
    squirrels. Again, I'm no animal expert or anything, but I have never heard
    the animals I described as "gliders" being referred to as much of anything
    else.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:49:34 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
    >> I
    >> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
    >> able to
    >> > fly.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
    >> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...
    >
    >Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
    >integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
    >bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
    >snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
    >to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
    >such time that you can't fly.
    >
    >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
    >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
    >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
    >to the design.

    To take a page from MSB...Jeff, stop being a moron in public:

    http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/other/dragonflies.asp
    http://www.windsofkansas.com/meganeuropsiskraus.jpg
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:088141ti6ktdnceg55dtpm8tcultmlsucf@4ax.com...
    > >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the
    largest
    > >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    > >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    > >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    > >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in
    size.
    > >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical
    limit
    > >to the design.
    >
    > To take a page from MSB...Jeff, stop being a moron in public:
    >
    > http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/other/dragonflies.asp
    > http://www.windsofkansas.com/meganeuropsiskraus.jpg
    >

    Not to get all technical or anything, but everything in my quoted paragraph
    is written in FUTURE tense, not past tense. As such, I'm right, because
    it's not likely that any environmental change is going to happen that would
    allow for giant insects.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    It has been brought to my attention that "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >> No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    >> possibly
    >> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    >(missed the original post, sorry)
    >There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
    >of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
    >35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
    >discovered, but still, that's pretty big.

    The largest flying creature known at this point is Quetzalacoatl. At
    the last reading of my Dinosuar books (circa age 14), they were about
    twice again as large as Pteranadons, and were pretty beefy to boot.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:36:43 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:o58141hv93j0lv8f92jkper9nh4lsig210@4ax.com...
    >> >Well, even the largest modern gliders are able to take off under their
    >own
    >> >power(condors, vultures, albatross, eg).
    >>
    >> Those are not gliders, they are fliers.
    >
    > To my understanding, flying animals
    >that spend hours barely moving their wings are considered to use "gliding"
    >as their standard means of locomotion,

    No, those animals are simply being efficient in their use of energy. It has
    nothing to do with powered or unpowered flight. All (flight capable) birds
    glide to some extent, that some are better than others does not turn them
    into "gliders".

    Condors, Vulture, Albatross, Eagles, Hawks, Owls...could all fly without
    the thermals that they use to glide upon. They *CHOOSE* to take advantage
    of this, it does not mean that they are required to do so.

    > By your definition, only animals that LITERALLY glide would be referred to as gliders,
    >such as flying squirrels.

    Yes, far be it for me to use the definition of the word to determine which
    animals qualify.

    Flying squirrels, flying lizards, flying snakes, whatever...incapable of
    sustaining themselves in the air. If they do not have a tall perch from
    which to launch themselves, they are mechanically incapable of even getting
    into the air in the first place.

    No different than the human definition for constructed aircraft. You can
    turn off the engines in a jet aircraft, and it will continue to fly for
    quite a while...that doesn't mean it is a glider.

    > Again, I'm no animal expert or anything,

    That much is obvious.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:45:07 GMT, Talen
    <talen@spamspamspamspam.dodo.com.au> scribed into the ether:

    >It has been brought to my attention that "Jeff Goslin"
    ><autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >>> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    >>> possibly
    >>> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >>
    >>(missed the original post, sorry)
    >>There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
    >>of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
    >>35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
    >>discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
    >
    >The largest flying creature known at this point is Quetzalacoatl. At
    >the last reading of my Dinosuar books (circa age 14), they were about
    >twice again as large as Pteranadons, and were pretty beefy to boot.

    http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/99oc_issues/oc990913/oc_bird.html
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:5rt14155tm7t8pspfi0tn58576hithoq86@4ax.com...
    > > The certainly
    > >could not stay aloft for hours, nor could they hunt effectively(given
    that
    > >most predatory birds use silent approaches that rely on wings that are
    more
    > >or less stationary until the very last moment).
    >
    > Um...talk about staggering stupidity. Vultures and Condors do not predate
    > anything, you imbecile. Stealth is not an issue when your food is already
    > dead. Albatross hunt FISH...who are not known for their stellar ability to
    > hear things that are not even in the water.

    Hence the word "PREDATORY" above. When talking about predatory birds, I'm
    thinking of eagles, hawks, falcons, etc.

    > If you want a stealthy bird predator from a sound standpoint, look at
    owls,
    > who have feathers designed for silence.

    ....Or owls(continue from above)...

    > >I don't know what you want to call it, but there are two major
    > >classifications of birds capable of flight, those that soar or glide, and
    > >those that flap their wings consistently. You name em, I don't much care
    > >WHAT you call them.
    >
    > I'm not to blame for your imprecision of language.
    >
    > There are birds who glide more, there are birds who flap more...but they
    > are all fliers.

    Only inasmuch as they all can get off the ground. Beyond that point, there
    are gliders/soaring birds, and there are those that flap their wings
    constantly.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:39:18 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> gibbered into the void:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:088141ti6ktdnceg55dtpm8tcultmlsucf@4ax.com...
    >> >Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the
    >largest
    >> >ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
    >> >increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
    >> >critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
    >> >exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in
    >size.
    >> >They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical
    >limit
    >> >to the design.
    >>
    >> To take a page from MSB...Jeff, stop being a moron in public:
    >>
    >> http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/other/dragonflies.asp
    >> http://www.windsofkansas.com/meganeuropsiskraus.jpg
    >>
    >
    >Not to get all technical or anything, but everything in my quoted paragraph
    >is written in FUTURE tense, not past tense. As such, I'm right, because
    >it's not likely that any environmental change is going to happen that would
    >allow for giant insects.

    Well, first the Earth will cool. And then the Americans will come.
    But they'll get too big and fat. So they'll all die and turn into
    oil. And then the (giant) scarabs will come and buy Mercedes Benzes.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:10:33 -0500, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
    into the ether:

    >No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> Patrick Baldwin <pax@osmium.mv.net> wrote in
    >> news:d1ps8c$8vu$1@pyrite.mv.net:
    >>
    >>
    >> Giant? No. Not even remotely possible. Consider the energy it takes to put
    >> something that weighs several tons in to the air. Consider that this energy
    >> must come from the creature. Now consider how much they'd have to eat to
    >> have that much energy stored in their tissue.
    >
    >What about on a planet with a very dense atmosphere and/or very low gravity?
    >
    >I know the two don't generally go hand in hand, but is it possible?

    Possible...but it couldn't be life like we have any experience with. Venus
    has a very thick atmosphere, and lighter gravity than the earth (although
    not by much), but it isn't an atmosphere you'd want to go around breathing.
    If some kind of life could evolve in that kind of enviornment, then it
    could conceivably be very large and still be able to fly.

    The best example we have here would be whales...as far as the ability to
    "fly" through it, water can just be considered super-dense air, and the
    various creatures that travel through it are essentially flying.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > > > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
    > > possibly
    > > > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
    >
    > (missed the original post, sorry)
    > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
    the top
    > of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
    wingspan over
    > 35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
    > discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
    >
    > Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described
    as huge
    > and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have
    been.
    >

    Most of the depictions I've seen they were described as fairly
    snakelike, which is rather thin. Only more recently have they been
    described that muscularly.

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

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:5rt14155tm7t8pspfi0tn58576hithoq86@4ax.com...
    >"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>:

    >> The certainly
    >>could not stay aloft for hours, nor could they hunt effectively(given that
    >>most predatory birds use silent approaches that rely on wings that are
    >>more
    >>or less stationary until the very last moment).
    >
    > Um...talk about staggering stupidity. Vultures and Condors do not predate
    > anything, you imbecile.

    Actually, that is a myth. Both prefer carrion, but both will also hunt.
    Condors will even attack deer, if they are hungry enough.

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

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.

    They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.

    Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than dragons
    are.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:

    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    >
    > They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    >
    > Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    > fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    > all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    > they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    > Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than dragons
    > are.
    >
    Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable real-life
    source.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:

    >Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >>> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    >>
    >> They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    >>
    >> Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    >> fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    >> all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    >> they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    >> Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than dragons
    >> are.
    >>
    >Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable real-life
    >source.

    So do the mermaid and the dragon. The manatee and the fossils....?

    Hell, in Marco Polo's time, the route to China met with men with faces
    in their chest and no heads, or their feet facing backwards. They had
    equally recognizable real-life sources, and were equally full of b.s.

    Give drunken sailors and ignorant peasants a little artistic license.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dan <Boone@Daniel.com> wrote in
    news:7lk1411t2sks2mm1oml0c3dgv75rvkq4vt@4ax.com:

    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:
    >
    >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>
    >>>> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    >>>
    >>> They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    >>>
    >>> Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    >>> fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    >>> all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    >>> they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    >>> Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than dragons
    >>> are.
    >>>
    >>Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable real-life
    >>source.
    >
    > So do the mermaid and the dragon. The manatee and the fossils....?

    Mermaids, yes, quite. Dragons are the weakest link, source-wise.
    >
    > Hell, in Marco Polo's time, the route to China met with men with faces
    > in their chest and no heads, or their feet facing backwards. They had
    > equally recognizable real-life sources, and were equally full of b.s.
    >
    > Give drunken sailors and ignorant peasants a little artistic license.
    >
    Cuz if you don't, they'll just take it anyway.

    --
    Terry Austin
    http://www.hyperbooks.com/
    Campaign Cartographer Now Available
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:23:40 -0000, Terry Austin
    <taustin@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:

    >Dan <Boone@Daniel.com> wrote in
    >news:7lk1411t2sks2mm1oml0c3dgv75rvkq4vt@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:
    >>
    >>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>>news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >>>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>>
    >>>>> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    >>>>
    >>>> They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    >>>> fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    >>>> all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    >>>> they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    >>>> Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than dragons
    >>>> are.
    >>>>
    >>>Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable real-life
    >>>source.
    >>
    >> So do the mermaid and the dragon. The manatee and the fossils....?
    >
    >Mermaids, yes, quite. Dragons are the weakest link, source-wise.
    >>
    >> Hell, in Marco Polo's time, the route to China met with men with faces
    >> in their chest and no heads, or their feet facing backwards. They had
    >> equally recognizable real-life sources, and were equally full of b.s.
    >>
    >> Give drunken sailors and ignorant peasants a little artistic license.
    >>
    >Cuz if you don't, they'll just take it anyway.

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

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:21:35 -0500, ruckerl1nospam@hotmail.com carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > <delurk>
    >
    > Not quite. Insects have been larger over the course of Earth's
    > history than they are now, quite larger. However, insects have a
    > passive respiratory system. If they get larger, it's more difficult
    > to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through pores in the exoskeleton.
    > The large size of prehistoric insects is thought to be related to a
    > higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.
    >
    > </delurk>

    It's not entirely passive, IIRC. Also, CO2 removal is at least as big
    a limitation as oxygen supply.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Dan" <Boone@Daniel.com> wrote in message
    news:7lk1411t2sks2mm1oml0c3dgv75rvkq4vt@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:
    >
    > >Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > >news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > >> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    > >>
    > >>> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    > >>
    > >> They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    > >>
    > >> Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes), breathe
    > >> fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or none at
    > >> all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different, isn't it? If
    > >> they were all based of something real you'd expect more consistency.
    > >> Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more consistent than
    dragons
    > >> are.
    > >>
    > >Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable real-life
    > >source.
    >
    > So do the mermaid and the dragon. The manatee and the fossils....?
    >
    > Hell, in Marco Polo's time, the route to China met with men with faces
    > in their chest and no heads, or their feet facing backwards. They had
    > equally recognizable real-life sources, and were equally full of b.s.
    >
    > Give drunken sailors and ignorant peasants a little artistic license.

    You still get that through to the 19th century concerning far flung and
    exotic places. IIRC large numbers of European sailors were petrified at
    the prospect of going to South America because of the stories about sea
    monsters and other wonderful things. Imagine what a great white would look
    like to the first unsuspecting travellers whose cultures were largely
    ignorant of it.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:54:47 GMT, Matt Frisch
    <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > No, those animals are simply being efficient in their use of energy. It has
    > nothing to do with powered or unpowered flight. All (flight capable) birds
    > glide to some extent, that some are better than others does not turn them
    > into "gliders".

    Domestic hens can fly, but they glide only slightly better than a
    brick, and I've never seen one actually glide (as in stop flapping its
    wings while in the air).


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:26:48 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    scribed into the ether:

    >On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:54:47 GMT, Matt Frisch
    ><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> No, those animals are simply being efficient in their use of energy. It has
    >> nothing to do with powered or unpowered flight. All (flight capable) birds
    >> glide to some extent, that some are better than others does not turn them
    >> into "gliders".
    >
    >Domestic hens can fly, but they glide only slightly better than a
    >brick, and I've never seen one actually glide (as in stop flapping its
    >wings while in the air).

    Condors don't just stick their wings out and glide either. If they were not
    adjusting their positions minutely, they would plummet almost exactly as a
    chicken does...they'd stay up a little longer because they have a larger
    wing surface area than a chicken does, but they'd hit the ground all the
    same. It is only through continual effort that they stay up.

    Humans have a similar mechanism for standing upright. If your body did not
    perform constant minute fine-tuning, you couldn't stay upright for very
    long at all.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dan <Boone@Daniel.com> wrote in
    news:8ko141pd9rq4a1u0u16juuoj57g0qfr3pc@4ax.com:

    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:23:40 -0000, Terry Austin
    > <taustin@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:
    >
    >>Dan <Boone@Daniel.com> wrote in
    >>news:7lk1411t2sks2mm1oml0c3dgv75rvkq4vt@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> gibbered into the void:
    >>>
    >>>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>>>news:klc1415ptgacithd51ickoc08m6iooa7vu@4ax.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:43:32 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >>>>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They did, and do. Bloody big lizards they are, too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Or did you mean those mythical things that fly (sometimes),
    >>>>> breathe fire (or noxious gasses), and have six limbs (or four, or
    >>>>> none at all)? Amazing how all these 'dragons' are so different,
    >>>>> isn't it? If they were all based of something real you'd expect
    >>>>> more consistency. Heck, vampire and were-creature myths are more
    >>>>> consistent than dragons are.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Vampires and were-wolves, at least, do have some recognizable
    >>>>real-life source.
    >>>
    >>> So do the mermaid and the dragon. The manatee and the fossils....?
    >>
    >>Mermaids, yes, quite. Dragons are the weakest link, source-wise.
    >>>
    >>> Hell, in Marco Polo's time, the route to China met with men with
    >>> faces in their chest and no heads, or their feet facing backwards.
    >>> They had equally recognizable real-life sources, and were equally
    >>> full of b.s.
    >>>
    >>> Give drunken sailors and ignorant peasants a little artistic
    >>> license.
    >>>
    >>Cuz if you don't, they'll just take it anyway.
    >
    > Greedy bastards.
    >
    In many cases, it is true that their parents weren't married. But really,
    it's not the child's fault. We should refer to illegitimate parents, not
    illegitimate children.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:48:29 GMT, Symbol scrawled:

    > You might be a little bit out of date there if this is true.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2910849.stm
    >

    Ooh, cheers, hadn't seen that.

    --
    http://www.rexx.co.uk

    To email me, visit the site.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:35:37 GMT, No 33 Secretary scrawled:

    > I don't know of any real-life examples of fire breathing, but we do have
    > things like electric eels, so perhaps it's not entirely silly. Not sure
    > it'd be a survival trait, though, given the likelyhood of mishaps that
    > would be fatal to the fire starter.

    Chemical fires were the example given in the programme - bombardier
    beetles fire our a chemical mix that apparently gets up to 200 degrees
    (I'm sure they meant in farenheit rather than C)

    --
    http://www.rexx.co.uk

    To email me, visit the site.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games