On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:05:21 GMT, Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(David DeLaney) wrote in
>news:slrnftvc9j.dok.dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>And how did that evolve? Long generations is going to make it harder to
>>>keeo up with your evolving prey, by the way.
>> Eh. So maybe they experience time differently than we. Magic magic
magic.
>"Magic" isn't a very useful response when the point is to show that
something
>isn't scientific idiocy.
When did that ever become the point? Vampires *are* scientific idiocy,
and I don't think anyone here has claimed otherwise. There's a small
subset of vampire stories that tries to fit them into a purely scientific
world view, but for the most part vampires are characters of fantasy, not
science fiction. Magic, and thus scientifically idiotic. Every bit as
scientifically idiotic as e.g. Nazgul, and just as fun to tell stories
about so long as you don't insist on missing the point.
In particular, it's silly to talk about vampires having evolved. In
vampire stories, "intelligent design" is fact, and the only sort of
science that can be counted on is "creation science".
Hey, they're marketed as "horror", so don't say you werent warned :-)
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
