Dezi, there is no need to appologize. We are all friends here :) Just incase you didn't notice, a lot of people here use the same avatar so there is 100% no reason to appologize.
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
We should all buy more American-related products, which at last checked was porn and cheeseburgers
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 11:10:43 pm EDT from 69.231.202.88

Sorry double post, and sorry to Warcrafter. I totally spaced on the avatar.. whoops. :) And sorry if I'm using someone else's now. :)
Dezi
Want to pinch!
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 10:25:11 pm EDT from 68.58.30.120

I usually post on the TGS comment room, but since, you guys have been on the topic of biology lately, I figured I'd repost here to see what you all come up with:

Ok so I'm kinda getting my friend into the series (and read to him two Timedancers earlier today) and now we're re-watching season 1. He brought up a question that I'm gonna pass off to you all. At first the answer seemed easy but then...I don't know.. OK:

If a gargoyle is in stone sleep, and you saw off his wing, then try to re-attach it, when he wakes up, will it still be functional? Will it still be a part of the gargoyle? or will it just fall off with the stuff you used to glue it back on...

At first I answered no, that wouldn't work, because, well, I pictured the person using mortar or concrete or something like that, and that won't turn to life..but then there's Coldstone. I know some parts of him were put back together by magic but they still had to glue the crumpled stone parts together. I always assumed the robot parts were to replace the parts that had disintegrated at the massacre, and that the magic was used to breathe life back into the stone form...but what did they use to glue the stone bits together?

There, have fun. We all might win over a convert on this one.
Dezi
Want to pinch!
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 10:23:34 pm EDT from 68.58.30.120

Is anyone having the same problem with trying to log onto the gargoyles news central site and getting *page cannot be displayed*
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
We should all buy more American-related products, which at last checked was porn and cheeseburgers
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 9:34:46 pm EDT from 69.231.202.88

Drive-by countdown!

12 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"The call me The Count because I love to count!" - Count von Count
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 3:14:26 pm EDT from 65.43.179.218

ATTENTION GATHERING ATTENDEES!

Still looking for people willing to lend a hand. Specifically looking for folks for helping out the guests, and people to handle the registration desk.

Email me at the address below! Thanks!
Kanthara - [volunteer@gatheringofthegargoyles.com]
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 1:35:19 pm EDT from 70.81.185.161

Gorebash -- My RL circles tend to include other parents, often with children within the original target demographic of the show. So when the subject of family television entertainment comes up, I mention the show and focus on its quality -- the voice actors, the animation, the acclaim from entertainment critics and parents' groups, the Shakespearean and other literary influences, the philosophical underpinnings, the moral allegories.

(I believe the series received Emmy nominations as well, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone can clear me up on this point?)

Shara -- I meant to say earlier that I'm looking forward to seeing you in Valencia too! :)
Ellen
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 7:59:30 am EDT from 205.188.117.68

If anyone attending the Gathering has and is willing to part with any of the special cards that came with, I believe, the Series I wax packs (which I was never able to find)--numbered F1-F9, I am VERY interested.

Harvestor> "Wow. Is there a site that has pictures of this merchandise? The fansite doesn't seem to have pics of the miscellaneous stuff."
I keep thinking of doing that now that I have a digital camera and access to a scanner. After I get back from the Gathering I might actually get around to playing around with my website for the first time this millenium.
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury - [qrimson_fury@yahoo.com]
"Hey, if they lugged Bronx along, the situation's got to be serious."
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 2:48:49 am EDT from 4.230.255.253

Hehe I have a really kewl costume in store for this year :P i hope it tops the brooklyn one.
Shara
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 12:52:35 am EDT from 4.246.215.101

Considering the connection between Preston Vogel and Owen Burnett, has anyone ever considered if there is a connection to Glasses (Dracon's right hand man) as well? Could all three be connected? Is there more that Puck hasn't revealed?
Just a baby creativity demon.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 12:51:10 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

If I can make it next year, I like the idea of going as one of the bit characters. As others have stated, the costume would be easy to assemble. The only problem is, I can't think of any bit characters who were tall, blond, and wore glasses. Well, I can think of one character like that, but he was a regular.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Well, anytime you'd like to START fighting would be fine with the rest of us!" -John Paul Jones's first mate
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 12:32:07 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Warcrafter> I've seen taht before and knew what happens and it still scared me, LOL.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 12:23:16 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Kjay> Next year's Gathering will be held in Pigeon Forge, TN. Just a heads up.

And for something completely unrelated, here's something I saw and nearly crapped my pants. Ill warn you it may scare you near the end......so I dare you guys to watch it with the volume up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHiglgKkcro&search=gargoyles
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
We should all buy more American - related products, which at last checked was porn and cheeseburgers
posted @ Sun, Jun 11, 2006 12:12:56 am EDT from 69.234.12.242

sorry for the double post but I noticed that the last few Gatherings were taking place out on the west coast. I wonder if the next Gathering would be in the central region of the US? Chicago perhaps?
kjay - [tigonesskay@netzero.com]
just wondering
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 11:12:47 pm EDT from 69.112.127.60

I'm patiently waiting for the Gargoyles comic to come out....
Garg evolution>The only way to solve this mystery is to get a DNA sample and run tests on it but since that's NOT possible, this is going to be debated til the end of time. But in my opinion, I think the gargs most likily came from the
synapsid's which were mammal-like reptiles, and then split-off into a different spieces. There are 8(I think)animal groups that predate mammals and they are close relatives, so it is possible that the Gargs came from an ansestor that was reptile and mammal-like; but until Greg says something we won't know for sure. oh the possiblities....
kay - [tigonesskay@netzero.com]
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 11:05:17 pm EDT from 69.112.127.60

Asatira -- we did it that way on purpose just to be big ol' meanies ... rather have people say there's too much to do than not enough.
Christine
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 5:40:31 pm EDT from 71.112.172.65

NY cast> It's tempting, but I don't think I'd fit too many of the extras. Still, it'd be neat to see.

Christine> Ah, so that's what Dude... is about. The only problem I'm having with this con is THERE ARE TOO MANY GOOD THINGS!! Decisions, decisions...

I find it amazing how many people liked the series. I have a co-worker who watches/d it on ToonDisnay (maybe in Disney Afternoon, but not sure), and she enjoyed it. I have an older cousin in her 60s who had seen the series and knew of it when I'd brought my season 1 DVD on vacation. There are a lot of people, and I usually mention the DVD and upcoming comic when I realize it. I don't know if it's enough though.
Asatira
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 3:33:38 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

Matt - "Well, the cool thing about it is that the costumes are much less demanding to construct."

Exactly! I can barely sew a button on a dress shirt, let alone make any sort of costume. Hence why I am keen on this; I'd love to cosplay, but the times I have tried to make anything always failed... like when in school I had to make a pair of shorts. *That* was a disaster. o.O

So, this will be easy. It will be something I can actually do (and there will only be a small chance that I'll mess up on it). XD Yaye!
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing that dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:55:24 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

Well, the cool thing about it is that the costumes are much less demanding to construct. And if we can get a large group of people, the effect will be awesome. I don't know if there is a list of all the random NY people anywhere, but there at least a dozen or two. Don't forget Travis Marshall, Dr. Sato and Morgan Morgan.
matt
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:49:24 pm EDT from 69.152.93.23

Matt - "So, would anyone be interested in cosplaying the entire random NY human cast at G'07? Let me know, it could be pretty cool."

Actually, yeah. That would be cool. Provided things go as planned on my budgeting, I should be able to make it next year, and that cosplaying idea sounds fun. Personally, when I first thought about it I wanted to be that jogger guy... but then, DT suggested who she calls "the terrorist woman" ( http://lynativerse.artchicks.org/Screencaps/Clarice01.jpg ) and I think I could manage that. Funny, I totally forgot about her.

So, if I can make it next year (and I probably will), I'll join in on this as that particular character. XD
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing that dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:26:17 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

Talking to the troll and encouraging him are considered feeding the troll, but talking about him is nearly as bad, like giving the troll fruit snacks. Lets stop talking about it/him.

So, would anyone be interested in cosplaying the entire random NY human cast at G'07? Let me know, it could be pretty cool.

Also, how should I go about getting the comic? Should I order all my comics from Amazon or...?
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 12:11:55 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

I haven't seen mudslinging this lame since the last Presidential campaign. Does someone think they're shocking us with the fact that some members of the fandom use a naughty word now and then? Grow up. Come to the Blue Mug-a-Guest at the Gathering, and watch how most of us are completely unfazed by it.

:: cue the ominous music because there are... ::

13 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 8:08:54 am EDT from 65.43.182.46

Does anybody care about his chat transcripts? No? Good. :P I know that I don't care about my name being on those things, and I know Lynati and The Sadistic Cow couldn't care less either. We're just laughing our heads off at the troll. :P

Did he mention that he tried to blackmail us with that and posted about waging "war" on us in the chat room after spamming the comment room? Of course not. He conveniently left out his side of the conversation. :P

Really, guys, ignore him. It's a proven method to make trolls go away. We've tried it and it works like a charm. :P

I'm going to have to steal Greg X's line... DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

Thank you. :P
D. Taina - [<-- Gargoyles Imagery Resource]
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 7:09:37 am EDT from 172.130.153.164

Of course, Kevin conveniently leaves out B!'s snickering right along with us at ELEVEN PM. ;P

And YAYE for Korgoth of Barbaria and gratuitious sex and violence that airs on Adult Swim!
Kythera of Anevern
I do not suffer fools, gladly or otherwise.
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 3:40:49 am EDT from 24.126.11.109

LOL

Proof is in the pudding. I lurk in gargoyles chat room and it takes a whole, get this, whole 5 minutes from the time I enter just to see this:


whell, have to be awake in the morning... Guess I'll go lie in bed and try not to think about all the mentions of masturbation tonight.. >.<
B!
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 2:46:04 am EDT from 71.209.146.225

Oh wait! There it goes! YAY KORGOTH!
Kythera of Anevern
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 2:45:00 am EDT from 24.126.11.109

But I have my "Whore's Nipple Bar & Grille" icon. YAYNESS!!! XD
Kythera of Anevern
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 2:44:45 am EDT from 24.126


It is as if you guys are incapable of PG-13 chat, you immediately go into masturbation and tits and boobs.

lol Seriously, I'm laughing. I promise you, enter a full chat room on this website, and your little clicke of people will start in on masturbation and tits and boobs. If you're not proud of it, then maybe you should take a deep look in the mirror :)

What's even sweeter about this is I apologized at least 5 separate times, but they just wouldn't listen. :) right now, all I'm doing is posting what these sick little perverts already say in that room. And buddy it really is funny from my perspective.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 3:22:14 am EDT from 207.200.116.68

Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't WEEEEE be frieeenndss!

The spirit in this room is so inviting! The conversation so fresh and friendly! I just don't understand why there aren't new people coming in...

Seriously, though. This is a reminder of why certain fandoms die out. The fandom starts out creative and unique, then gradually withers as fans leave and websites fade away. Those that are left create a bitter, anal-retentive, elitist, nitpicky, stale air that scares away any newcomers who might've breathed fresh air into the community (not referring to Kevin, I'm referring to newcomers in general who read this stuff and run like hell). Petty squabbles and snits have taken the place of discussions about the series.

The biology conversation went from fun to nitpicky. The stuff with Kevin has become one big battle of words and flames. And when there isn't fighting or nitpicking, the room is deader than a Kentucky-Fried Gargoyle.

The fandom sure has changed since I left it years ago...
Makhasu - [aknellthatsummonsthee@yahoo.com]
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 3:19:49 am EDT from 66.74.220.146

I know I said not to feed the troll, but I have to say something at least once.

Kevin> I somehow doubt anyone cares. Seriously. TSC, Taina and Lynati have something that you don't have. Credibility.

I read most of that, you're not embarassing anyone except yourself. No one likes you. No one respects you. No one is going to take your side.

Hell, I say much worse things than that on a daily basis. Hell, check the archives, I said much worse than that in here. I suppose you could try blackmailing me, but, I have no shame. Take whatever you want, and post it where ever. I'm sure you can find something. As "bad" and "vulgar" as you say they are, I'm much, much worse.

So, try it. I dare ya. Just know that I won't give a shit, because after this post, I will no longer dignify anything you have to say with a response.

Get a life.
Greg Bishansky - [<---- The Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Plato once said that for everything that exists, there is a perfect form of it somewhere. A perfect human being, a perfect chair, a perfect stick, so that everything is a shadow of that one perfect form. Now, if we follow that train of thought, that means that somewhere in the universe there exists the perfect form of the absolute and complete idiot and he left here an hour ago." - Matthew Gideon
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:33:23 am EDT from 68.199.4.45

enjoy some of these emails, just a small copy of what goes on in the chat room.

I sincerely hope you don't take my word for it, and instead you actually go into the chatroom yourself. And seriously cow, my chat logs are legit. Especially since I have dated email stamps of my correspondence matching exactly when I copied the logs. So enjoy your jacking around TSC. This is gonna be fun

I mean, man, even the Star Trek boards during Enterprise weren't nearly as bad as some of the foul disgusting and outright defaming things coming from TSC. I tried many times to apologize to these pricks. Now it's time to have some fun :)



so in oterwords you think you can get away with any amount of abuse you want to get away with in the chat room. Sorry Taina, that kind of nazi fascism ends with me. And it's gonna be a good time showing everyone what really goes on with you two in this room.

The fact you're trying to scare me away from posting what you said in the main chat only proves to me you're scared out of your wits that they'll see what kind of vulgar crap goes on in here. Especially with TSC and Lynati.
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:42 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
If you are such a pathetic little git that you won't respect the wishes of people who are not involved, then you can piss right off.
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:33 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
It's spelled "hypocrisy." For someone who's such a fan of the dictionary, you sure misspell a lot. :P
D. Taina
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:22 pm EDT from 172.144.23.100
I am respecting THEIR wishes by TRYING to keep our PERSONAL arguement BETWEEN US, and NOT involving them.
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:43:46 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I beg anything off of you, you disgusting, putrid little slimeball.

Have you stopped to think abotu what the OTHER people in the comment room want? THEY DO NOT WANT, OR NEED, THIS STUPID DRAMA IN THERE.

If you won't respect ME, respect THEM
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:43:03 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin: The chatroom is one thing. No logs are kept, and everything was said among a group of friends. In the comment room, it's there for everyone to see. Really, it was said in private. Keep it in private. :P
D. Taina
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:42:58 pm EDT from 172.144.23.100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.



You are a vulgar, nasty, disgusting woman TSC, and I mean purely disgusting.
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:51 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
*Takes a mustardy dump on Kevin*
Demonic Toddler - <I am evil
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:39 pm EDT from 68.107.154.71
TSC i was nice and quiet until you started with your crap, you people have had 1 week to be nice to me after repeated tries. Now, as far as I'm concerned, your fat, lying, defemating ass can go to hell TSC
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:20 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
Kevin, just shut the f*ck up for once in your goddamn sorry life.
The Sadistic Cow
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:20:07 pm EDT from 69.157.14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


I clicked your name, wench! It had better not steal what's left of my soul, though... :P

BB - Oh yeah. Masturbation Daily is a great newsletter. You should subscribe. :P
The Sadistic Cow
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:55 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
lol cow, do you think that talking like that gives you any credibility on the lies and literal bullplop that come sout of your mouth?
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:40 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
SC > So, heard anything new in the world of masturbation? ;)

Taina > Ooooh. *does so*
BrooksBabe
Cheese is the Devil's plaything.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:17 pm EDT from


I'm considering posting their conversations on the front page of s8.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

Here's some more demonstrating the proof of the pudding.

Lynati's idea of a good time is just to try and piss people off in the chat room until they react.

I've ignored her, and just not spoken to her, she just keeps it up, at some point, it's really gonna hit home that she's one of the major problems with the site.

I've only not gotten along with 4 people in that room.


No actually you don't get it. The problem didn't start until Lynati decided to screw with me. And I'm tellina ya, she won't even be able to shut up now. SEE THere she goes agian LOL The timing couldn't have been anymore perfect.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:39 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
He really doesn't.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:35 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
I don't have to prove you wrong for you to be wrong.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:17 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Kevin: Sigh, you just don't get it, do you? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:48 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina as I said, I didn't say one bad thing to anyone in this room until after 40 minutes of crap from your friend.

In fact I was having a real good time with brooklex and he was having fun too!
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:44 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
um, no, what is infuriating is you THINKING you are right, when you are not.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:27 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
If you don't even breathe a thought about me, I won't even speak to you and I'll actually be nice, but I know you can't do it. Cause I know your type. And as much as you want to prove me wrong, you won't be able to. And what would be even more infurating to you Lynati, is knowing that I was right.

lol
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
TSC> Not that bad - worse..... I still got the email conversation saved up. I asked for the story to be re-rated for violence (and maybe re-written in parts) and got INSTANTLY accused of pow-wowing with the 'victim' to zensor his work, shut him out of the fandom and whatnot. I never got an answer to my SECOND email (in which I stayed VERY polite and buisness-like - dunno how I managed that after all the personal attacks in that answer)....
Guandalug la'Fay - guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org
It has been said that the world is a strange place. This is not true. The world is a VERY strange place.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:27:48 pm EDT from 80.145.48.30
Kevin: You should stop acting like a newbie for yourself. Don't you want to stay in the chatroom? Do you want to be forced away? :P
D. Taina

No actually you don't get it. The problem didn't start until Lynati decided to screw with me. And I'm tellina ya, she won't even be able to shut up now. SEE THere she goes agian LOL The timing couldn't have been anymore perfect.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:39 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
He really doesn't.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:35 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
I don't have to prove you wrong for you to be wrong.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:17 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Kevin: Sigh, you just don't get it, do you? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:48 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina as I said, I didn't say one bad thing to anyone in this room until after 40 minutes of crap from your friend.

In fact I was having a real good time with brooklex and he was having fun too!
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:44 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
um, no, what is infuriating is you THINKING you are right, when you are not.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:27 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
If you don't even breathe a thought about me, I won't even speak to you and I'll actually be nice, but I know you can't do it. Cause I know your type. And as much as you want to prove me wrong, you won't be able to. And what would be even more infurating to you Lynati, is knowing that I was right.

lol
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
TSC> Not that bad - worse..... I still got the email conversation saved up. I asked for the story to be re-rated for violence (and maybe re-written in parts) and got INSTANTLY accused of pow-wowing with the 'victim' to zensor his work, shut him out of the fandom and whatnot. I never got an answer to my SECOND email (in which I stayed VERY polite and buisness-like - dunno how I managed that after all the personal attacks in that answer)....
Guandalug la'Fay - guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org
It has been said that the world is a strange place. This is not true. The world is a VERY strange place.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:27:48 pm EDT from 80.145.48.30
Kevin: You should stop acting like a newbie for yourself. Don't you want to stay in the chatroom? Do you want to be forced away? :P
D. Taina


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


Feel free to ban me, but the comments comming from Lynati and TSC are just outrageous in chat today, especially Lynati's 3 hour harassment about whether or not I wrote a fan fiction just to piss me off.

It's a shame I didn't record all of that, but it would've been something for you to read.

I don't deal with with asshats like these two, and when people like that decide to piss me of, I'm more than happy to play with them.

You've got a serious problem though with these two, and it makes sense what Greg and Alex have said about Hazing going on at station8.


Kevin, again - take your own advice. Shut your own pie hole for once.
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:32 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
....this is like rubbernecking at a multi-car pile-up.....
.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:22 pm EDT from 70.251.107.249
then ban me I've logged most of this conversation anyway
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:20 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
....when the hell did I say you were feeling yourself up?
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:06 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin- what does age matter?

and how do you know I haven't been?
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:05 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Good one Nightstorm, you just proved my point, thanks for playing!:D
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
Kevin: You're going to get banned. :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:58 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina, I didn't say it was but I also said they wanted it on so it's on. Either they end it now, or it's not gonna end. I gave both of them more than opportunity to shut the pie holes they call mouths. Instead they want to play.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:47 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
I think he's mad because he doesn't have what it takes to masturbate with.
Nightstorm
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:36 pm EDT from 69.142.239.24
LOL@ TSC

Lynati, if I had said you were feeling yourself up on your end of the computer and laughed at you for it, you would've been so disgusted you'd be screaming at me. Please, how old are you? 18, 19?
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:08 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245


_-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nightstorm - *chokes on drink* XD
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:31 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin: "Shut the pie holes they call mouths," "whizzing contest," "literal horse dump that comes out of your mouth"...

You've said these things and you can't deny it. And you say Lynati and Cow's comments were not tasteful? Why don't you look at yourself in a mirror before you put down others? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:30 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Guaaaaan.... my dear.... *smiles*
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:17 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
I just proved your point that you have no penis?
Nightstorm
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:13 pm EDT from 69.142.239.24
Isn't it great?
Lynati

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth@aol.com
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:32:39 pm EDT from 172.161.236.110
Kevin
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:22:49 am EDT from 71.211.234.245

O.O

Chameleonhyena? ... **Is in DEEP trouble... and looking forward to it!**
Kythera of Anevern
I do not suffer fools, gladly or otherwise.
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 1:12:29 am EDT from 24.126.11.109

JJ> How exactly do you know that people in this comment room have an anger management problem? *scrolls through previous posts* I really don't see any posts representing anger, unless your talking about the posts against Kevin, not that I have anything against him of course. Maybe those posts that seem like anger were just signs of asking to take it down a notch. In real life, the person posting may be a jolly guy/gal :) Than again, you may be right. I don't know, I'm not expert at this stuff
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
It has been proven that Peter Griffin is really Hank Hill in disguise.
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 12:48:16 am EDT from 69.234.4.94

DVDs > For my communications class is school the other week I did a Powerpoint presentation on Gargoyles and The Gathering :D

Everyone said how much they liked it and a few even gave me the 'Man I loved that show!' spiel. Unfortunately, I can't tell them to go out and buy the DVD's as they never got released in Australia :( (I snagged mine off Ebay)

But I did mention the comic and DVDs in the presentation :)

Cosplay > I only took part inthe Masquerade once, but I didn't have a costume. We did a skit of the Season 2 opening monologue ^_^

If I have the talent (and space in my luggage) I'd love to cosplay as pre-upgrade Hyena :D

I have a goal for next year! ^_^
Chameleongirl
Chameleon may changer her spots, but she refuses to do plaid.
posted @ Sat, Jun 10, 2006 12:43:15 am EDT from 202.87.162.31

:blushes:
I better qualify my post.
"That" was the chat transcript, no Demonskrye's comments.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:47:53 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

???
Posting that here wasn't the most sensitive thing even done (understatement of the year?), but who ever heard of a personal argument in a public chat room?
:extremely puzzled:
A lot of people here have anger management issues, that is for sure. Already knew that, though.

Matt>> The only thing you did "to me" (that I can think of) which I can vaguely call "upsetting" is your strange statement about preferring a genetic based classification system to a cladistic approach. I'm sure that was an innocent mix-up, but not correcting yourself misleads and confuses people like Patrick, and that saddens me a little. Heck, Patrick, you probably won't have to worry about clades again in your life, right? Thus, even that's really not that important.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:45:36 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

Just a couple more days and the comic will come out, though unless someone invents a filter for the comment room, I don't know that even that will tip the scales in favor of good conversation again.

Gorebash> Interesting thoughts. It is kind of disheartening sometimes to run into people who remember "Gargoyles" fondly and then hear them say something like "They should really put that show out on DVD". The lack of news about the second half of Season 2 doesn't make for a much happier mood. The comic may help and I sincerely hope Disney gets an ad for the DVDs in there somewhere, but one of the few places that there were ads for the DVDs was in comics, so I kind of doubt anyone who wasn't already aware of the DVDs existence will learn about it through the comic.

I did, when I was writing for an animation website a while back, try to promote the Season 1 DVD's release. I don't know how many people saw it and I'm afraid it may have come off as a bit fannish. The only reason I think that may be a bad thing is that it can be a bit intimidating. You don't want people to feel like the only way they're going to enjoy the show is if they see every single episode in order and keep track of every minor character, background, and line of dialogue. Certainly you can get a lot out of "Gargoyles" by doing that, but you can also just watch a few episodes casually and still enjoy it. It should be entertainment, not a commitment.

I think one way to plug "Gargoyles" well is to be kind of subtle about it. Putting a link in your signature on a message board is one thing, but people's sigs can get to be kind of like most ads on the net; they're so omnipresent that you sort of skim right over them. Stuff like using a gargoyle picture in your avatar or having a name from "Gargoyles" as your name on a message board, in an MMORPG, or wherever. This lets people come to you and bring up the subject. "Hey is that 'CrzyDemona' like Demona from 'Gargoyles'?" (Please forgive me for taking the liberty, Jen.) "I like you pic. Where's it from?" "Hey, I remember 'Gargoyles'! That show was great!" This way, you're not being the crazy person who comes into message boards and talks about "Gargoyles" all the time. You're attracting the people that you want to attract: casual fans who aren't in the loop about new developments.
Demonskrye
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:30:25 pm EDT from 209.6.250.47

*blinks several times, slaps his face, realizes that no, his eyes do not deceive him.*

Ooooooo-kay.

So, anyway, how about those rainbow suspenders? Pretty cool way to keep your pants up!
Harvester of Eyes
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:15:27 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Wow, I'd better put on my hip waders. Someone's flooding the room.

I'm scheduled to be one of the co-hosts of "Dude Looks Like a Lady." Naturally. ;)
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"I see dumb people. They're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know that they're dumb."
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:08:21 pm EDT from 65.43.182.46

LOL, whee, another chance to use my Drama Llama!

And for the record, the panel "Dude Looks Like a Lady" is on costume tips for cross-dressing ... beards for babes, bosoms for boys, etc. Brought to you by some of the Masquerade's tried-and-true experts :)
Christine - [<----- Drama Llama!]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 11:04:59 pm EDT from 71.112.172.65

If our "vulgarity" in the chat gets us banned from there, maybe we deserve it; we certainly did take a lenient view of what its PG-13 rating might exclude talk of. But we all made an effort to avoid bringing any flaming on that level here to the comment room, where we *know* it does not belong.
Lynati
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:53:05 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167

Well, guys, now you know what Kevin's really like. :P
D. Taina
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:44:57 pm EDT from 172.144.23.100

JESUS TAP DANCING CHIRST KEVIN. I mean, that last post is........oh man, think of the drama llama, think of the drama llama.
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
My friend got a python with a 300 chrisler kit on it and whenever he stops at a red light, the rims stay still but the car starts moving................oh, and one more thing.....DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:34:56 pm EDT from 69.234.4.94

enjoy some of these emails, just a small copy of what goes on in the chat room.

I sincerely hope you don't take my word for it, and instead you actually go into the chatroom yourself.

I mean, man, even the Star Trek boards during Enterprise weren't nearly as bad as some of the foul disgusting and outright defaming things coming from TSC. I tried many times to apologize to these pricks. Now it's time to have some fun :)


so in oterwords you think you can get away with any amount of abuse you want to get away with in the chat room. Sorry Taina, that kind of nazi fascism ends with me. And it's gonna be a good time showing everyone what really goes on with you two in this room.

The fact you're trying to scare me away from posting what you said in the main chat only proves to me you're scared out of your wits that they'll see what kind of vulgar crap goes on in here. Especially with TSC and Lynati.
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:42 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
If you are such a pathetic little git that you won't respect the wishes of people who are not involved, then you can piss right off.
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:33 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
It's spelled "hypocrisy." For someone who's such a fan of the dictionary, you sure misspell a lot. :P
D. Taina
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:44:22 pm EDT from 172.144.23.100
I am respecting THEIR wishes by TRYING to keep our PERSONAL arguement BETWEEN US, and NOT involving them.
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:43:46 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I beg anything off of you, you disgusting, putrid little slimeball.

Have you stopped to think abotu what the OTHER people in the comment room want? THEY DO NOT WANT, OR NEED, THIS STUPID DRAMA IN THERE.

If you won't respect ME, respect THEM
The Sadistic Cow - midnightfantasia AT hotmail DOT com
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:43:03 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin: The chatroom is one thing. No logs are kept, and everything was said among a group of friends. In the comment room, it's there for everyone to see. Really, it was said in private. Keep it in private. :P
D. Taina
Stupidity rules the Internet.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:42:58 pm EDT from 172.144.23.100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.



You are a vulgar, nasty, disgusting woman TSC, and I mean purely disgusting.
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:51 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
*Takes a mustardy dump on Kevin*
Demonic Toddler - <I am evil
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:39 pm EDT from 68.107.154.71
TSC i was nice and quiet until you started with your crap, you people have had 1 week to be nice to me after repeated tries. Now, as far as I'm concerned, your fat, lying, defemating ass can go to hell TSC
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:21:20 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
Kevin, just shut the f*ck up for once in your goddamn sorry life.
The Sadistic Cow
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:20:07 pm EDT from 69.157.14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


I clicked your name, wench! It had better not steal what's left of my soul, though... :P

BB - Oh yeah. Masturbation Daily is a great newsletter. You should subscribe. :P
The Sadistic Cow
No squealing; remember that it's all in your head.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:55 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
lol cow, do you think that talking like that gives you any credibility on the lies and literal bullplop that come sout of your mouth?
Kevin - DalbozOfGurth aol
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:40 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
SC > So, heard anything new in the world of masturbation? ;)

Taina > Ooooh. *does so*
BrooksBabe
Cheese is the Devil's plaything.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:00:17 pm EDT from


I'm considering posting their conversations on the front page of s8.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

Here's some more demonstrating the proof of the pudding.

Lynati's idea of a good time is just to try and piss people off in the chat room until they react.

I've ignored her, and just not spoken to her, she just keeps it up, at some point, it's really gonna hit home that she's one of the major problems with the site.

I've only not gotten along with 4 people in that room.


No actually you don't get it. The problem didn't start until Lynati decided to screw with me. And I'm tellina ya, she won't even be able to shut up now. SEE THere she goes agian LOL The timing couldn't have been anymore perfect.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:39 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
He really doesn't.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:35 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
I don't have to prove you wrong for you to be wrong.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:17 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Kevin: Sigh, you just don't get it, do you? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:48 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina as I said, I didn't say one bad thing to anyone in this room until after 40 minutes of crap from your friend.

In fact I was having a real good time with brooklex and he was having fun too!
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:44 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
um, no, what is infuriating is you THINKING you are right, when you are not.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:27 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
If you don't even breathe a thought about me, I won't even speak to you and I'll actually be nice, but I know you can't do it. Cause I know your type. And as much as you want to prove me wrong, you won't be able to. And what would be even more infurating to you Lynati, is knowing that I was right.

lol
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
TSC> Not that bad - worse..... I still got the email conversation saved up. I asked for the story to be re-rated for violence (and maybe re-written in parts) and got INSTANTLY accused of pow-wowing with the 'victim' to zensor his work, shut him out of the fandom and whatnot. I never got an answer to my SECOND email (in which I stayed VERY polite and buisness-like - dunno how I managed that after all the personal attacks in that answer)....
Guandalug la'Fay - guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org
It has been said that the world is a strange place. This is not true. The world is a VERY strange place.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:27:48 pm EDT from 80.145.48.30
Kevin: You should stop acting like a newbie for yourself. Don't you want to stay in the chatroom? Do you want to be forced away? :P
D. Taina

No actually you don't get it. The problem didn't start until Lynati decided to screw with me. And I'm tellina ya, she won't even be able to shut up now. SEE THere she goes agian LOL The timing couldn't have been anymore perfect.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:39 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
He really doesn't.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:35 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
I don't have to prove you wrong for you to be wrong.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:29:17 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Kevin: Sigh, you just don't get it, do you? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:48 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina as I said, I didn't say one bad thing to anyone in this room until after 40 minutes of crap from your friend.

In fact I was having a real good time with brooklex and he was having fun too!
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:44 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
um, no, what is infuriating is you THINKING you are right, when you are not.
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:27 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
If you don't even breathe a thought about me, I won't even speak to you and I'll actually be nice, but I know you can't do it. Cause I know your type. And as much as you want to prove me wrong, you won't be able to. And what would be even more infurating to you Lynati, is knowing that I was right.

lol
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:28:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
TSC> Not that bad - worse..... I still got the email conversation saved up. I asked for the story to be re-rated for violence (and maybe re-written in parts) and got INSTANTLY accused of pow-wowing with the 'victim' to zensor his work, shut him out of the fandom and whatnot. I never got an answer to my SECOND email (in which I stayed VERY polite and buisness-like - dunno how I managed that after all the personal attacks in that answer)....
Guandalug la'Fay - guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org
It has been said that the world is a strange place. This is not true. The world is a VERY strange place.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:27:48 pm EDT from 80.145.48.30
Kevin: You should stop acting like a newbie for yourself. Don't you want to stay in the chatroom? Do you want to be forced away? :P
D. Taina


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


Feel free to ban me, but the comments comming from Lynati and TSC are just outrageous in chat today, especially Lynati's 3 hour harassment about whether or not I wrote a fan fiction just to piss me off.

It's a shame I didn't record all of that, but it would've been something for you to read.

I don't deal with with asshats like these two, and when people like that decide to piss me of, I'm more than happy to play with them.

You've got a serious problem though with these two, and it makes sense what Greg and Alex have said about Hazing going on at station8.


Kevin, again - take your own advice. Shut your own pie hole for once.
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:32 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
....this is like rubbernecking at a multi-car pile-up.....
.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:22 pm EDT from 70.251.107.249
then ban me I've logged most of this conversation anyway
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:20 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
....when the hell did I say you were feeling yourself up?
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:06 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin- what does age matter?

and how do you know I haven't been?
Lynati
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:05 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167
Good one Nightstorm, you just proved my point, thanks for playing!:D
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:04:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
Kevin: You're going to get banned. :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:58 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Taina, I didn't say it was but I also said they wanted it on so it's on. Either they end it now, or it's not gonna end. I gave both of them more than opportunity to shut the pie holes they call mouths. Instead they want to play.
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:47 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245
I think he's mad because he doesn't have what it takes to masturbate with.
Nightstorm
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:36 pm EDT from 69.142.239.24
LOL@ TSC

Lynati, if I had said you were feeling yourself up on your end of the computer and laughed at you for it, you would've been so disgusted you'd be screaming at me. Please, how old are you? 18, 19?
Kevin - dalbozofgurth aol
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:03:08 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245


_-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nightstorm - *chokes on drink* XD
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:31 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
Kevin: "Shut the pie holes they call mouths," "whizzing contest," "literal horse dump that comes out of your mouth"...

You've said these things and you can't deny it. And you say Lynati and Cow's comments were not tasteful? Why don't you look at yourself in a mirror before you put down others? :P
D. Taina
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:30 pm EDT from 172.161.12.221
Guaaaaan.... my dear.... *smiles*
The Sadistic Cow
I love ya baby, but all I can think about is keilbasa sausage; your buttcheeks is warm!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:17 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20
I just proved your point that you have no penis?
Nightstorm
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:05:13 pm EDT from 69.142.239.24
Isn't it great?
Lynati

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:32:39 pm EDT from 172.161.236.110

Gorebash: Interesting idea; we do seem to find old fans of the show around every corner, and more where anime or general fantasy material is already involved. If you post to the forums there, you could also make your "signature" promoting Gargs. (Heh, Aaron and I have toyed around with the notion of making a guild and naming it "The Preying Gargoyles" , spelling and pun intended. ; )
Lynati
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:12:13 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167

Shara > that's what I'm most looking forward to! And why getting this costume together is freaking me out XD I'm thrilled to check out your Brooklyn this year too, it's so awesome ;_;
Trickster - [scruffyrebel@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 9:29:37 pm EDT from 24.126.137.116

Trickster> The masqurade is alot of fun. The best part about last year was because vegas wouldnt let us run through the casino in fear that we would rob them :P Cindy had to grab me by the wing cause I had a huge wing span brooklyn costume and guide me through the hall way and people called it the brooklyn side shuffle or somehting haha. But yeah the masqurade I found alot of fun because it's not like your typical comic con anime expo etc masqurade. It's laid back and you can relax and have fun. Most of all Greg weisman judges the costumes and that in it's self is just really exciting to ahve the creator of a show you adore look at something you make and give you praise for it.
Shara - [jeanie54_2000@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 9:15:28 pm EDT from 4.245.122.208

Wow. That's a new one. But then, the troll wasn't around when I stopped posting under "Rob" and started posting under my domain name. Sometimes, I wish I were a chick. Then I think it would be easier for me to pick up women.

Patrick: I was just speaking in metaphorical terms. You know, how "Fossil" and "Dinosaur" are used to describe things that are really old. It's usually derogatory, but it is done.

Wolfbane: Put me down for Demona.

Gorebash: Do you have a link to this CSS Site you put together? This sounds interesting.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Well, anytime you'd like to START fighting would be fine with the rest of us!" -John Paul Jones's first mate
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 8:55:11 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Matt>If you are interested in cosplaying that jsut give me a picture and id be glad to. Although Im already entered in the masqurade this year. Im trying to top my brooklyn costume from last year.
Shara - [jeanie54_2000@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 8:23:45 pm EDT from 4.245.120.115

Lucky I've got such a one-track mind...XD

I've been a cosplayer for a number of years but my girlfriends and I weren't able to make the Gathering last year, so this year is our first. I've read the reports on the Masq and seen pics, but I'd love to hear what it's really like...how it's set up and the fun you guys and gals have at it. I'm looking forward to it very much and can't wait for two weeks from now!
Trickster - [scruffyrebel@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 8:01:35 pm EDT from 24.126.137.116

He's a troll, and an attention whore. As I said before, coming from me, this is funny. But, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

The easiest way to deal with this one is to completely and utterly ignore him.
Greg Bishansky - [<---- The Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"Plato once said that for everything that exists, there is a perfect form of it somewhere. A perfect human being, a perfect chair, a perfect stick, so that everything is a shadow of that one perfect form. Now, if we follow that train of thought, that means that somewhere in the universe there exists the perfect form of the absolute and complete idiot and he left here an hour ago." - Matthew Gideon
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:58:15 pm EDT from 68.199.4.45

Kevin> We have all given you the benefit of the doubt over and over, but you've proven yourself to be a troll. Congrats. I for one will not feed the trolls. I'm out.

If your goal,
was to be a troll,
what can we say,
besides "go away"?

That poem was almost as bad as Kevin's logic.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:47:50 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Kevin - "What with The Sadistic Cow talking about really vulgar disgusting bodily functions in the chat room every time she enters"

Look, what goes on in the chat room has NOTHING to do with what is going on in the comment room. Bringing your personal grievances with me into the comment room and involving people who have nothing to do with it is as idiotic as you claim the lot of us to be. I have not brought our personal issues in here, because they DO NOT BELONG HERE. And I am NOT enjoying the fact that I am responding to your little dig here.

If you want to argue with me, or insult me, or say whatever the hell you want to say to me, fine. Keep it to the chatroom or you can email me at the addy I am hereby providing and we can settle it that way. But do NOT, and I MEAN DO NOT bring it into the comment room and involve others who have NOTHING to do with it. If you have beef with me, take it up with ME, and leave the comment room OUT OF THE EQUATION.

I am only going to tell you this once: leave our arguement OUT of the comment room. Do NOT bring it up in here again. My email address is RIGHT THERE for you to send me whatever flames you bloody well feel like sending me; personally, I don't give a flying rat's buttocks. Or, if you want, we can continue this in the chatroom - whatever you prefer, though to be honest I'm sure everyone who visits there is sick and tired of watching us rip each other's throats out.

If you want to continue in this utter stupidity, then be my guest. But do NOT bring it in here again. And don't even bother responding to me here. Email me, hit me in the chat - I don't care.

BUT. NOT. HERE.

The comment room does not need this drama, and I for one do not want to see it get any messier than what it already has.
The Sadistic Cow - [midnightfantasia [AT] hotmail [DOT] com]
The one thing that dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:35:08 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

Asatira I've only ever see reporters use the word living fossiles, but you speak with any paleontologist and they'll just tend to use the word Dinosaur. Especially since the word is about as scientifically specific as saying "Earthling" or "Victorian". I mean you even have some entomologists who go on about cockroaches being dinosaurs.

PS it'd be cool if this site had a real messageboard.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:13:00 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

LOL

Matt, please, keep it up. Man, you know I knew that some of you are real and I mean really genuinely stupid. What with The Sadistic Cow talking about really vulgar disgusting bodily functions in the chat room every time she enters, to you claiming that no dinosaurs were lizards (totally ignoring all of the fish, lizards, let alone first the mammals which were all irregularly classified), but the fact that you think posturing while slinging names on the front page does anything to make this look like a credible gargoyles fansite.

I mean I'm just laughing my butt off right now. It's really really funny. Especially your idiotic statements you made about dinosaurs and the triassic period. But please, go on ahead make sure you keep posting, it's really funny to watch :D

PS: How many Digs have you actually been on, just would be nice to know :D
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:09:09 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

I'd like to know that myself, but I assumed a panel on crossplaying?

Matt - that's a great idea! I woud love seeing a group of the NY human characters
Trickster - [scruffyrebel@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:46:54 pm EDT from 24.126.137.116

pardon the double post, but I was wondering if anyone knows what in the world "Dude looks like a lady" is? I see it on the schedule, but I have no idea what that is.
Asatira
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:45:21 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

Kevin> uh, the coelocanth is in general terms called a "living fossil," and is recognized as a fish. It is also considered very very old, or at the least very little changed from the original. And no, I was considering a number of known dinosaur species, including the smaller ones, in my comment. Have you honestly been reading and considering a thing we've written/said in the last week?!?

Sadistic Cow> I'm seconding the Drama Llama!! *getting peeved*
Asatira
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:42:51 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

Trickster> Now is a superb time to interrupt the conversation.

And speaking of cosplaying. Has any group of people ever came as all the random New York humans (you know, Margot & Brendan, Billy and Susan's parents, Art and Lois, Mr. Jaffe, Construction Guy, Jogger, even the three muggers)? I think that'd be realitively simple and kinda fun. If anyone is interested in doing that for G'07, I'd love to do it. The more the merrier. It'd be great if we could get all the random NY humans together. LOL.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:42:42 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Wow I haven't checked this place out in like a year! Anyway, sorry to interrupt the flow of the conversation with something unrelated...but do any of you veteran Gathering attendees know what characters there might be cosplayed this year? I'll be Puck and I'm just trying to get an idea of what characters might be around that I could make use of...like if there's a Demona coming I'll totally be bringing chains so we can get some The Mirror shots. Thanks!
Trickster - [scruffyrebel@yahoo.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:37:30 pm EDT from 24.126.137.116

DUN DUN DUN!

I think it's time for... THE DRAMA LLAMA!

"If you speak it, it will come..."
The Sadistic Cow - [<---- Da Drama Llama!]
The one thing that dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:36:26 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

Kevin> You are either:

1. Totally uneducated. In which case you are wrong and should educate yourself before you make posts like that.

2. Are playing the semantics game. In which case you should realize we are all using a scientific definition of 'dinosaur', as this is a scientific conversation (concerning classification nonetheless).

3. Making a joke. In which case you might want to add a few emoticons.

4. Trying to make trouble. In which case I reccomend looking through the CR archives and seeing what happens to trolls and notice that none of them visit the Room anymore.

or
5. Two or more of the above. In which case I feel sorry for you.

I'm willing to mail you $100 if you can provide me with a link to a credible scientific website that states that any lizard, mammal, insect, or fish (including sharks) is a dinosaur. Scientific website. You prove it and you win $100 of my hard earned money. And I only have $20 in the bank, so I'm pretty confident here.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Go ahead. Impress me." -David Xanatos, "Vows"
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:23:12 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Kevin, and anyone who would like to check their facts with a REAL paleontologist can email this guy:

*clicky*
Leo - [<- click]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:01:06 pm EDT from 68.107.154.71

Now a dinosaur is any animal that live 100 million years ago? I give up. This debate is over for me. Heck, I'll invoke Godwin's law. Hitler.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 5:34:14 pm EDT from 67.38.252.96

Ooo, I didn't notice this. Kevin, since when is the early 19th century considered ancient?
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 4:41:16 pm EDT from 216.248.119.208

Kevin : I'm not even going to begin to try and correct you on your whole post, but the word 'dinosaur' does not mean 'thunder lizard'. It means 'terrible lizard'. 'Thunder lizard' is Brontosaurus. Oh, and incidentally, Harvester isn't a she.
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 4:38:47 pm EDT from 216.248.119.208

Ooooo My favorite gargoyle? hrm... I think Angela is my favorite because she embodies Goliath's, Lexington's and Hudson's ideals of learning, exploring, bettering herself, trying to see things from all perspectives. She's a leader in the making.

Goliath is great too, and I say he's just 1/2 a point behind Angela in my book. I like Hudson and Lexington, they're next in the lineup.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 4:35:51 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

Matt: seriously dude, if that were true the half of the dinosaurs in the triassic period wouldn't even be called dinosaurs. Just make sure you tell the living dinosaur-lizards like the kodos and the crocodiles that they aren't actually dinosaurs.

According to the ancient scientists all Dinosaurs were Lizards (hence the name, Dinosaurs - Thunder Lizards!)


Like HoE said, although she only really talks about Sharks, the fact is what happened with the dinosaurs is exactly what I suggested to happen with Gargoyoles -- total mis classification. But it's too late now for science to go back and re-classify everything, so Dinosaurs have just come to mean any of the species during the 100 million year reign. That includes mammals, fish, lizards, early avians...

You know the coelacanth? that's considered a dinosaur (amazing that it turns out they are indeed not extinct).

There was a detailed Discover magazine about sharks, the only difference between some of the fossilized sharks and living sharks was the position of the eye sockets and the nose. Otherwise it's been speculated that the dinosaur sharks could still breed with the sharks of today.

Komodos are called living dinosaurs because of their biology.

More than a handful of scientists have speculated a couple of the dinosaurs previously thought to be reptiles are really very large mammals and not reptiles at all, seeing as how they would birth their young. I can't remember their names. Some others laid eggs and nursed ( a trait that reptiles are not supposed to have ). Let's not forget some of those 5 foot long insects.

Seriously, it sounds like you only consider dinosaurs to be applicable to the T Rex and Stegosaurus large behemoth types. Since you seem to know only the popular idea of Dinosaurs, I'm sure you remember those little Compys from Jurassic Park? Yeah, even Robert Barker thinks those were probably more like lizards than any other reptile. They even used that little lizard guy from Australia as a base model for Compys (the one who fans his neck out to cool down and runs across the desert, cute little guy, definitely a lizard).

But hey, believe what you want, I don't really care cause you totally missed my point.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 4:33:15 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

hey, ok i'm takeing a pole to see which gargoyle is favored the most. so... who is your favorite gargoyle?
my votes 4(no duh) lexington!
ttyl, l8r dayz, and peace out!
WOLFBANE^_^
WOLFBANE - [lowman618@aol.com]
WOLFZ ROCK!!!!! PYROTECNIXX GARGOYLES(13) ROCK!!!!!!!!(thats my band)
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 12:29:20 pm EDT from 66.194.217.223

So I had another moment that's very typical of anytime Gargoyles is brought up in conversation with people who aren't involved in the fandom (meaning haven't seen or heard about it since it went off-air). And that is the reaction of "oh yeah! that show was cool!" or "i loved that show!" and "whatever happened to it?"

It happens way too often. The show rocked. Lots of people saw it and knew it rocked, and would probably love to get back into it with the DVDs and the comic if they knew about them.

With volume two potentially being released later this year, and with the new comic out, there's some serious momentum behind the franchise. We need to help it along and pull in the old fans.

So how do we do that?

What I've done (aside from s8) is I've got this little CSS/web design site separate of s8 (I even go by a different name) where I plug the hell out of the show. Sometimes I get e-mails saying "hey, cool CSS stuff, can I make a donation or something?" and I always reply with "I don't want dontations, but if you'd like, go out and a buy a copy of the Gargoyles DVD". That's worked (if I'm to believe the e-mails I get) pretty well.

But what else can I and others do? The next thing I'm doing (today) is tossing a post about the show up on a Warcraft guild site. I was in an MC raid the other day when Gargoyles came up and I got the exact reaction I described above. So there's interested in that group of people which I'm now going to try and cultivate a little. Again, a pretty small audience (relatively speaking) but it's something.

I'm thinking that maybe a little page on 'talking points' or something similar might be worth putting together to help others spread the word in a manner that keeps it from coming across as too aggressive or "geeky".

What do you guys think?
Gorebash
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 12:05:43 pm EDT from 207.206.247.234

Pretty much what everyone else has said. The current thinking is lizards and other reptiles evolved and co-existed with what are considered true dinosaurs, as did the mammalian ancestors (and some recent evidence points to pretty decent sized proto-mammals existing at the time of dinosaurs). Dinosaurs are a distinct lineage of species, where some species' lines ended while some became the modern bird. Based on recent evidence, scientists are leaning more and more to dinosaurs being more like birds, including some having feathers. If you watch any recent dinosaur program (from say Discovery Channel or more recent PBS), there are scenarios where the dinosaurs have feathers, and some scales. It's going off the evidence available, and then filling in the gaps with educated imaginings.

That's what's so great about science. If it's wrong, you acknowledge it and move on to something more accurate.
Asatira
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 10:24:45 am EDT from 24.214.68.215

Kevin> Bakker is already aware that none of the dinosaurs were lizards, but it was nice of you to consider telling him.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:45:39 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Patrick: Metaphorically, a shark could be a modern-day dinosaur, if the term "Dinosaur" is not used in the literal sense. They are older than the dinosaurs, and have survived almost every mass extinction on this planet. We sometimes use the term "dinosaur" to describe someone or something that's old or antiquated, and the shark order is extremely old.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Okay, I want a goddamn concerted effort not to come off a record that's a f**king up-tempo record every time I do a goddamn death dedication!" -Casy Kasem.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 7:09:32 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Crocodilians and lizards are lines of reptiles that are distinct and seperate from the dinosaurs. Depending on who you believe, the dinosaur line either died out or gave rise to the birds. Crocodilians and lizards were around before the age of dinosaurs, and they survive to this day. Sharks aren't even reptiles, they're a type of fish. I've never heard anyone who even remotely knew what they were talking about call a shark a "modern-day dinosaur."

Just two weeks left to go.

14 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering]
"I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." - Batman
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:52:21 am EDT from 67.38.252.96

Matt: Relax. I'm sure once June 28th rolls around, we'll all have something to talk about.

And now for something completely different:
I was watching "Walking With Cavemen" on Discovery last night, and I got to thinking: wouldn't it be amusing if Demona wrote a children's book? I imagine it would probably be something called "Humans are Like That."

"This is Bob. This is Bob's friend, Mary. This is Frank. Frank's appearance is different from Bob and Mary's. Because Frank looks different, Bob and Mary will fear him for no reason. This is because humans are small-minded, and only look at outward appearances. Humans are like that."

The only problem I can see is that it wouldn't even be popular among gargoyles, not even after the next generation finally hatches.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Okay, I want a goddamn concerted effort not to come off a record that's a f**king up-tempo record every time I do a goddamn death dedication!" -Casy Kasem.
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 6:25:27 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Kevin : "I'm an idiot and there's no such thing as a dinosaur who was a lizard." So glad you understand that.
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 4:28:23 am EDT from 216.248.119.208

Kevin>> Who has been calling crocodiles and sharks "dinosaurs"?
I can see bending the word "mammal" to cover extremely mammaloid creatures who share a (relatively) recent ancestor with traditional mammals, but I don't follow you here.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 3:37:24 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

hrm, they're not? None of them?

hrm..

guess I gotta send an instantaneous spam email to all the komodos and geckos and monitors heck, even crocodiles are considered really close cousins to lizards by many scientists.

hrm.. and lizards are reptiles.

hrm.. and dinosaurs has just become a generic term describing any extinct reptile.. course, some mammals and fish have been called dinosaurs in the past too... modern day crocodiles and sharks are still called dinosaurs.

But since you said no dinosaurs were lizards, ever, ever, I guess no dinosaurs were lizards! Quick, let me go grab Robert Bakker's phone so I can tell him of your amazing discovery. I'm an idiot and there's no such thing as a dinosaur who was a lizard.


Matt: I don't mind discussing scientific classificiations, if there is some common ground on the subject. But due to all of the unanswered questions, all we're doing at this point would be classifying them under currently available classifications (which keeps getting knocked down), or making up new words for all of the classifications (which only greg can really do).

We're just at an impasse here :(
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 1:58:50 am EDT from 172.195.83.179

So do gargoyles have pubic hair? Points to loin cloths :-)
Shara
posted @ Fri, Jun 9, 2006 1:50:30 am EDT from 4.246.209.17

Ok, look. Heres the deal. I stated my theory (and notice that is 'theory' with a lowercase t) only to discuss an idea I've been developing about the evolution of gargates. I never intended to get into debates about creationism, the names of gargate species, differing classification schemes or any of that. I don't really care what scientific name gargoyles end up with (Whats in a name? Does the sky need a name? Does the River?). I'm sorry if I got short with anyone on any of the other topics. Mainly, I was unprepared to discuss them, though I still back up most of what I said. The point is, I'm talking about gargate evolution, from where they branched off the tree of life to modern times. I've come up with (I feel) a reasonably good hypothesis to explain the whens, hows and whys of their descent, though I'm sure I could benefit from other opinions. If anyone wants to make criticisms, questions or comments on my theory, great, I'd love to hear them. If someone has an alternate hypothesis to explain how and when gargoyles evolved I'd love to hear that too. But I'm honestly tired of all this semantic book talk, and I don't feel like talking about it anymore. I'm narrowing my current topic of discussion to gargoyle evolution, not classification, not naming.
Sorry again if I upset anyone. I know I'm prone to doing that, but I feel part of the blame is on the limitations of cyberspace. We loose all tone, body language and facial expression in this Room and that can and does cause misunderstandings a lot, so I'll try to be more careful.
Two more things:
1. If you don't care about the topic in the room this week, sorry, but I'm sure next week we'll be discussing something else. And besides, all of us have weeks when the topics of discussion don't interest us, but this is a community room, so we should all be patient. There are certainly many weeks when the topic of conversation doesn't inspire me to offer any comment.
2. None of the dinosaurs are lizards. None of them. If someone said they were, I wouldn't say they were idiotic, just uneducated. But none of them are lizards.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 7:41:23 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Kevin : "dinosaurs (most of which are considered lizards)" Only by the truly idiotic.
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 5:39:50 pm EDT from 216.248.119.208

Sigh, I really hate playing this card. But, here.

It is a CARTOON!

It is a fantasy world!

These are fictitious beings!

They are whatever their creator says they are. Greg made up his own class of animal that they fall under. That works for me, I accept that. They are a very old species, predating humans and Oberati. That works for me. No, there is no text book "Origin of Gargoyle" life, nor does their need to be. It's nice to have a sense of mystery there.

Personally, I am more concerned with who the gargoyles are as characters and where they're going from here than I am concerned with the origin of gargoyle life.
Greg Bishansky - [<---- The Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"I am The Decider!" - President George Walker Bush
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 5:09:33 pm EDT from 68.199.4.45

before anyone misquotes me:
Basically I see them as Birds
What I meant to say was
"Basically I see them like I see Birds (as a completely different species like Greg said)"
I did not mean to say that I think they are birds. tyvm.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 4:43:17 pm EDT from 172.194.187.6

Well thing is which I said before, their physical characteristics tell a wildly different tune than common knowledge prior to 1990 would be saying. I mean, a species evolved from dinosaurs (most of which are considered lizards), turning out to have more mammalian characteristics than any other reptilian divergence on the planet.
Basically I see them as Birds -- Avians are completely unique type of species (I mean gargoyles have more in common with humans than Avians have with reptiles). If they didn't exist in reality and were instead a figment of a creator's imagination, we'd have no clue what to call Avians. I mean stop and think about this for a moment, think about all the wildly different characteristics birds have.

Now wait.

Ok, we're left with a choice here.

1. Classify Gargoyles using common every day known classifications and OLD techniques (if we do this we have to think to a time that did not know about evolution ok? we have to pretend that biology has not advanced to the stage of DNA testing or Blood Pressure machines, or heart monitors, otherwise it just won't work). Using this method I still think that scientists would've made a grave mistake by calling gargates an offshoot of mammals. Of course we know better! This would later be "fixed" with annotations in science books stating that they are really from such and such but share many characteristics with mammals etc...



2. We create entirely new classifications using latin dictionaries -- this is something we can do only with Greg's involvement. If Greg's not involved, then we have to stop. Making up names and words would just be an exercise in futility.


I'd prefer if Greg did this whole thing for us with a detailed explanation. It'd be cool if Greg put together a book of Gargoyle sociology (like those gnome books). Then he could really have fun with it.


The main point is that any scientist classifying gargoyles prior to even the 1990s would have screwed up. Especially considering skull structures are so similar to human skulls, do you realize how many screw ups a scientist would make based on gargoyle looks and skeletal structure? I mean we have people claiming they have bodies of winged humans in real life! Just imagine for a second what some scientists would be trying to do with skeletal bodies of gargoyles!

It took YEARS and I mean YEARS for scientists to realize that the Brontosaurus didn't actually exist! That the skull of a Brontosaurus was actually a skull from another dinosaur which was already classified! The body that skull was on turned out to be an apatosaurus! We are talking modern times here. There's no way scientists would've classified gargoyles correctly on the first try (and the first try is what gives things their names).
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 4:39:13 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

I re-read some of what I missed. Matt, if I misinterpreted your later posts about the evolutionary divergence, I apologize.

JJ: I'm talking about a different suggested Class, not Synapsida, and as such my view does not put Gargates under it. Matt and I are bandying about theory, not fact, so while we can probably present many facts to prove eachother's suggestions wrong/less likely, we cannot truly prove ourselves right. And as I just clearly stated, I do not see Gargoyles descending from mammals. I see them as descending from a seperate Class of six-limbed vertebrates not seen amongst any other place.

Beasts and wings- I think one theory for that which has been put forth is that they evolved to being primarily rookery gaurdians, and as they did they "lost" their wings, since they were no longer needed.

As for the creationism debate, I tend to agree with Whitbourne and Asatira. I believe in the theory of evolution, and I am not an atheist. I do not believe in God (as he is represented by the monotheistic religions) either, but that was not a decision I came to from a scientific angle- "if evolution is real, god isn't!"- but from a spiritual one.
Lynati
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 11:53:57 am EDT from 70.245.206.167

Patrick>> "Classification based on physical characteristics is pointless."
1) You just said that all taxonomy from before 1990 was useless. Physical characteristics is what taxonomists had to work with.
2) Such classification doesn't have to be vague.
3) You just declared this whole week's discussion useless.
4) You don't understand what a "clade" is. Matt made a mistake. A clade is a group of *all* organisms descended from one common ancestor.

Matt>> Of course gargates have much in common with reptiles. They are both amniotes! ;-) Heck humans have quite a bit in common with reptiles-- four limbs, internal fertilization, etc. etc. -- as we are amniotes as well. (For others, roughly speaking amniotes are birds, reptiles, mammals, and dinosaurs combined.)

The problems I have were clearly enumerated below.

Also, how do you define "reptile," anyway?

Lynati>> I believe the peer class to Sauropsida would be Synapsida. Matt's arguments would place gargates squarely in Synapsida.

It's hard to do better than that. I'm suggesting that gargates be in Theriodontia, or even Mammaliformes, as I can find suggestion that there are like furry animals there that do not belong to Class Mammalia.

So, are gargates "mammals"? Do you say to-may-to or to-mah-to?
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 11:32:42 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

Matt- I agree with most of that, except that I am pretty sure that Greg said they weren't descended from dinosaurs either. That they were something not descended from anything that science had so far unearthed and labeled. Which is why I like to think that they share a common ancestor with what predated the dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals, instead of having either group as an "ancestor". Creating a category of "warm-blooded creatures that lay eggs and have a third set of limbs" that is on par with Mammalia and Sauropsida, and having Gargoyles in a division somewhere beneath *that* Class. One of the benefits of doing it that way, if anyone else is inclined to see it as such, is that having that extra Class also gives you a place/common "ancestor" that other six-limbed, egg-laying mythological beasties (that by the species level may be as far removed from gargoyles as we are from sea lions) might trace back to as well. Which, if you are playing around with the theoretical taxonomy of not only Gargoyles but similarly-built mythological creatures, is a useful thing to have.

Harvester of Eyes: I think that (the lack of body hair) has been suggested in places for the "average" appearing gargoyles, but I'm pretty sure that Una and Leo were covered in hair/fur typical to the animals they appear like. Not positive about that though.
Lynati
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 10:26:29 am EDT from 70.245.206.167

Patrick> I think the problem with them not being mammals is that some people are wary of thinking creatively and want to simplify by placing them in existing groups. They may also have a subconcious bias and feel that for gargoyles to diplay an equal intelligence to us, they must be closely related to us.
People need to understand that Gargates are just too different from mammals to be mammals, there are similarities, yes, but their are also similarities between them and reptiles and of course there are unique features too. Thats why I think it is so logical that they branched off the mammal-like reptiles.
Anyway, Greg W has said they are not mammals, so I think its kind of a moot thing to debate about.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 7:41:52 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Classification based on physical characteristics is pointless. If the characteristics are made sufficiently vague, every animal on the planet belongs to the same "clade." What's so horrible about gargoyles NOT being mammals?

15 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering]
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage, "Mythbusters"
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 6:54:47 am EDT from 67.38.252.96

Actually, there are some cetaceans who do have a small amount of hair that gets lost shortly after birth.

Anyway, I do remember reading under "Facts About Gargoyles" on someone's website that aside from scalpal hair (and on some, facial), gargoyle bodies were hairless. I'd just need to ask her what her source was, though. A lot of the facts looked legit.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Well, did you ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real and in the present tense, or that everybody's on the stage and it seems like you're the only person sitting in the audience?" -Ian Anderson.
posted @ Thu, Jun 8, 2006 6:27:17 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Thank you JJ that is what I was trying to say!
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 11:01:01 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

The genetic method is a clade method. Biologists use it to ensure that all the entities in a taxon do comprise a clade, by determining their most recent common ancestor.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 10:33:02 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

I'm very aware of the different classification systems. I do not much like the clade approach because I don't believe it provides any real information regarding species. I am a strong backer of the genetic family tree because it most accurately shows evolutionary relationships, which I believe is most critical and important. I am one of those scientists who believes we should resample the DNA of all living things to make a more accurate family tree. Its a lot of work, but I think we might as well do it as the data will be much more interesting and useful when we do. The Linnean system is alright but doesn't take into account new data coming in from genetics labs, something we didn't have when the current system was created.

Please don't judge me. I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to do so.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 10:21:35 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

No, Matt. I fear you are not familiar with the traditional methods of classification.

Check out classification schema from before around 1990, then check out proposed schemes from today.
As I have suggested before, think about the traditional Class Reptilia vs. Class Aves. If Reptilia were to be a clade, it would have to include Aves! There are some who argue for Class Reptilia none the less.

You can check some of the references provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia

Also, you could check out the recent proposal to restructure Class Mammalia based on genetic evidence. See http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040111
or click on my name. Obviously this is different than the current taxonomy.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 10:05:37 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

JJ> From a more narrow point of view, they wouldn't be classified as mammals. This is based on the conventional view of mammals as live-bearing, hairy, lactating, warm-blooded only. This includes placentals and marsupials. Expanding to a larger clade to include egg laying, it includes monotremes. So, expanded clade, gargoyles could be in a larger clade of mammalians.
Asatira - [gostowl@yahoo.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 9:51:54 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

There are species of mammals without hair. All the cetaceans for instance. Other mammals are nearly hairless, such as naked mole rats. But since we've never seen a naked gargoyle, its hard to tell if gargoyles are devoid of hair.

Anyway, since the conversation in here is based on gargoyle evolution, I figured we were classifying them by heredity. I know thats a wild assumption on my part... So, gargoyles lay eggs and are warm blooded, lets call them birds. Since they are nocturnal they are probably related to owls. Since they perch on churches sometimes they are probably most closely related to barn owls, since barns are like churches in structure. So there ya go, gargoyles are most closely related to barn owls.
What a joke.

We are talking evolutionary classification here... obviously.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 9:45:26 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Are you so sure that some gargoyles are devoid of hair? ;-) How about in their noses and ears?
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 9:24:35 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

The only problem with grouping gargoyles and mammals is that some gargoyles are completely hairless, and hair (or fur) is one trait that all mammals have in common.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Well, did you ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real and in the present tense, or that everybody's on the stage and it seems like you're the only person sitting in the audience?" -Ian Anderson.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:47:59 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Actually, many of you are trying to use the modern (from the 90s) system of classification based on forming clades, groups of beings all descended from a common ancestor.
Classical classification is based on *characteristics*, not necessarily on heredity.

Matt> What Kevin said was that while gargoyles and "normal" mammals may not comprise a clade, they are so similar that gargoyles could be considered mammals. Frankly, at this moment in time, I agree. Scientific theory is supposed to be predictive, and calling gargoyles a special type of mammal predicts a lot of their features pretty well.

As for Greg W. saying they're not, well, let him; classification is rather arbitrary. Think about the battles over the fate of that lump of rock we call Pluto.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:41:55 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

Harvester - *raises hand* I second that notion.
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing that dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:01:27 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

Or we could just stop before Greg has to intervene again.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Well, did you ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real and in the present tense, or that everybody's on the stage and it seems like you're the only person sitting in the audience?" -Ian Anderson.
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 7:50:21 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Kevin> You said "Frankly I am more inclined to stick Gargoyles under the Mammalian category..." You said this less than a day ago. Scroll down for yourself and you'll see it. We are not making this up. You said it.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 7:09:12 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Stop? What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? The Puck can no more stop refuting bad logic than breathing the air.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering]
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:54:21 pm EDT from 70.229.215.236

Kevin> I read your previous posts as well as I can. I'm still trying to figure out what your point is with Romans and their attempts at classifying species. The Romans (and the Greeks before them) are recognized for their attemtps to record species they've seen or heard about (I believe it is Pliny the Elder who wrote an early encyclopedia of animals, and a large part of it was hearsay). So they could have heard about gargoyles, but any attempts by the Romans are currently ignored/invalid for this conversation. We're basing this off of Darwinian evolution and the Linnean system of taxonomy and naming: anything Roman is applicable only in regards to names. Second, Greg W. has stated that the Humility spell was cast on the gargoyles around the time of Constantine; so if the Romans hadn't had contact with gargoyles within the Empire proper, they did in the eastern half (someone correct me on when the spell was cast). The Romans were most likely aware of gargoyles in the Gargoyle Universe, and the records were most likely lost or destroyed over time if they existed in the GU.
Asatira
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:38:16 pm EDT from 24.214.68.215

Kevin> You clearly are not reading our posts, and I'm beginning to wonder if you are even reading what you are typing! I don't want to reread your posts, they didn't make much sense the first few times, I'm not gonna go back now. I never said the Romans didn't know gargoyles (I'm sure they did), I said that their classification system is meaningless (partially because this is before the current Linnaean system was in place and partially because the Romans didn't have the biological expertise we have today. They didn't understand evolution, fossils, genetics or any other things so crucial for classification.

"not all dinosaurs were lizards."
P.S. NONE of the dinosaurs were lizards.

Vinnie> That isn't true. We were all newbies once and here we are. I was a newbie once and often lost arguments because I didn't truly explore all the information on this site and all the information that the old timers have. That isn't to say that we are always right, but we do know our stuff. Newbies often come up with a lot of great fresh new ideas, but when they don't bother to try to learn what has already been confirmed by Greg or what already is canon, it just gets annoying. Esspecially when the presume they are right and won't back down even though us old timers all know we are right.
I really wish you wouldn't stir up trouble like this. I hate that people try to drive a wall between the newbies and oldies. In the last few months there have been several newbies who came in and were a wonderful addition to the Room. Unfortunatly not all of them are this way.

Garg evolution> I believe the stone turning thing as we see it today didn't evolve until Gargates had been seperated from the mammal-like reptiles for some time.The earliest Gargates may not even had had anywhere near that ability yet. As I said earlier, the earliest gargates probably were only hibernating during each day in a very still position, at most they might have had a slight hardening of the skin during the day.

Gargoyle diversity> The wide diversity in the modern gargoyle species is a WHOLE other topic. It may relate to bits of their evolution, but we know from Greg that all the gargoyles alive in modern times (not the Beasts) are ONE species and therefore quite capable of interbreeding, no matter what their individual and regional differences. Most of the differences we see are pretty superficial (coloring, brow size and shape) and the bigger differences (snake-like lower body, beaks, crests, different wings, etc.) seem to all be based on a certain gargoyle archetype. Brook's beak, Griff's beak and Zafiro's reptilian jaw are all probably working off the same set of jaw modifier genes. All the variety of wings we see are also based on a archetype wing shape (probably similiar to Goliath or Demona's wing type) and just modified by certain genes to be expressed in other ways. For instance Brooklyn and Obsidiana have a wing type that is a very slightly modified from Demona's type. It still has a small hand with one elongated finger, but the skin of the wing is strecthed directly from wingtip to back without arching out as Demona's do. I've also noticed that Desdemona's wings actually do share a lot in common with Lexington's wings, believe it or not. They both have reduced digits with a peculiar branching out to the side rather than over the shoulders. In fact Desdemona's wings could be a result of a mix of Lexington's and, say, Goliath's wing type. Gabriel's wings are very similiar to Othello's, but have been modified by genes inherited from Desdemona creating another different wing type. The wings of the English Clan and some of the Mayan Clan gargoyles is probably very similiar to that seen in other Clans but with a feather-like covering (that I think is probably a modified hair) over the wing structures. We could probably learn a lot if Zafiro, Leo, Una or Griff would kindly shave their wings for us. : )
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:35:15 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Battle Beast: Maybe you should read my post again I never said all regulars suffer from Aristocratic Syndome. I only said a good many are suffers!
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Remember the old Gargoyles comics!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:25:48 pm EDT from 69.54.209.136

Me, I'm just trying to find the bridge. Has anybody seen the bridge?
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:23:46 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Kevin : So, according to you, Odin and Anubis are Greek/Roman?
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:07:05 pm EDT from 216.248.119.208

That's I LISTEN to... no anything else.
Battle Beast - [Canada]
GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! ... ...
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 5:53:31 pm EDT from 198.53.28.99

Vinnie> That's not true at all. i lsiten to and welcom all newbies. And I've NEVER said anything about anyone without being first provoked. (And I never bash newbies.)
Battle Beast - [Canada]
GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! GO OILERS GO!!! ... ...
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 5:53:01 pm EDT from 198.53.28.99

Kevin: Unfortunately a good many regular posters suffer from Aristocratic Syndome. So they wont listen to a single thing a newbi has to say and worse if you dare to suggest anything that contradicts their views of Greg W.'s universe. ;) So unless you like flame wars or have a warped sense of humor I suggest you move this disscussion because that's all you will get here. Nothing but headaches!
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Remember the old Gargoyles comics!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 5:36:59 pm EDT from 69.54.209.89

TSC I posted 5 paragraphs detailing exactly what I meant about classifying, and then I get two people saying that I said they were mammals and not gargates.

I explicitly said in my post that was NOT what I was saying.
Kevin
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 3:19:39 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

Kevin - So sayeth the King of Ignoring Other People's Posts.

Oh, and this is a cute little gem: "means you won't even pay attention if I explained it again, so just stop."

Now you know how WE feel! Not to offend, but to inform - perhaps you should practice what you preach, and actually read what we are saying. Because you've made it quite obvious of late that you don't. *taps on the head*

This is also adorable: "1. I am not bashing Greg or arguing against his quote. What I am going to say are a few things that maybe he needs to re-look at the whole biological discussion and include some points that we are making (all of us) in his final analysis."

Because in the next instant you also say this: "The only one who can even try to do this is Greg."

So... Greg needs to re-look at things, because he's not doing this correctly... yet he is the only one who can actually say what they are, because this is HIS world and therefor what he says is actually correct?

*ahem* You'll have to excuse me while I go bang my head off the wall.

*goes back to lurking... again*
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 2:53:51 pm EDT from 69.157.14.20

"Still, the ability for radically different gargoyles to mate (a gargoyle like Griff and a female gargoyle like Lex, or more pointedly, like the snake-gargoyles of Mesoamerica?) may make a wash of all our work. Something strange is going on in gargatian genetics."

This is why I believe must of this to be an exercise in futility-- it's only going to break down into even worse bickering over what they are and aren't. The only one who can even try to do this is Greg.
Kevin
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 2:12:17 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

Patrick I don't think you have ever quoted me or the context of my quotes correctly, so just stop, thx. I explained what I said so thuroughly the fact you completely and I mean completely screwed it up means you won't even pay attention if I explained it again, so just stop.


Matt:
The romans made extinct well over 200 species in africa alone, and they named each one of them. The only way Romans wouldn't have said wouldn't have said what gargoyles were/are is if they never ever ever ever saw them.

The atlanteans knew about them, if the romans didn't after conquering one third of the known world and half of the civilized world, then I'd be surprised. I mean genuinely surprised.

They have been protecting humans for a very long time (goliath states this in the premiere), they've had a symbiotic nature with human culture, they were around at the time of atlantis, and the FAY are greek/roman creatures. They both seem to know each other.

The only thing that'll make me believe that the romans had no clue who or what they were or that they even existed is if Greg says -- Romans never once saw a gargoyle.

Then I'm gonna think-- ok my suspension of disbelife is out the window on that one. Gargoyles are supposed to be older than humans, everyone even atlanteans know about them but the Romans don't? no thanks, not believable.

Now Romans would know about them either:

1. Atlantean writings
2. They saw them and worked with them
3. They saw them and set them to die in the circus



Pandas-- yeah I was just making a point about cross species and mis-classification. The fact that scientists keep arguing about pandas well... that's my point :D


"Mammals are the only creatures capable on this planet who can nurse their young."
-Yeah, them and Gargates. You seem to have a hard time accepting that Gargates are a whole new group of animals, and they also nurse their young.

-- Matt that's not what I was getting at at all. please just re-read my post.


"Frankly I am more inclined to stick Gargoyles under the Mammalian category, with their ancestral tree from the Dinosaur category..."
-Thats not even possible. Gargates can't be mammals descended from dinosaurs because mammals didn't descend from dinosaurs. The closest common ancestor between dinosaurs and mammals was one of the earliest reptiles around 350 million years ago. Shortly after the reptiles evolved one group split off to become the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles and ultimately, the mammals, the other branch went on to evolve into all the modern reptile groups, a few extinct ones, the dinosaurs and the birds.


---- matt, go back and read my post, I didn't say they were mammals I said the only way to solve this without greg's direct involvement is by an intentional mis-classification as if it were done without anyone knowing that gargoyles came from dinosaurs.

And let me tell you something, there's no way in flippin HELL anyone would know gargoyles were from dinosaurs, and scientists would err on caution by calling them a cross species under the mammal tree.

and PS: not all dinosaurs were lizards.
Kevin
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 2:00:22 pm EDT from 71.211.234.245

I think we should take into consideration
*lactation
*hair
*teeth differentiation
*ear structure (The elaborate outer ear structure must mean something!)
*Possibly even composition of the eyes (biologists: are there any living non-mammals that have whites to their eyes?)
Based upon that, I think garagetes should be in a clade closely connected to class Mammalia. Perhaps in clade Mammaliaformes?

Still, the ability for radically different gargoyles to mate (a gargoyle like Griff and a female gargoyle like Lex, or more pointedly, like the snake-gargoyles of Mesoamerica?) may make a wash of all our work. Something strange is going on in gargatian genetics.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 1:54:20 pm EDT from 206.57.93.104

Hi, just link dropping for MGC for June... the May topic is up for voting, so head over and pick your favs - also there's a new topic up, so get drawing! ^_^ we've also moved our forum, so if you want to stop by and help get the new place going, that would be great! :)
kess - [< MGC!]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 11:56:13 am EDT from 68.42.196.10

Here's what I think is a pretty good order of things (I wish I were at home where I have my scanner and my books, so forgive the generalness of this).

1. The last common ancestor of true dinosaurs, birds, and reptiles diverged from the line that will eventually create mammals (Clade 1).
2. Based on the idea of both gargoyles and mammals being warm blooded, they descend from Dimetrodon or a similar mammal-like reptile species. The line for Gargates could diverge here as well, forming the Gargates clade (Clade 2).
2b. An alternate is it could have branched later earlier from a mammal-like reptile that had the mutation/trait of changing to stone. This would still have the POTENTIAL for warm blooded-ness and lactation, but make the break much older.
3. The third clade continues on, deveoloping into monotreme-style mammals, then later marsupial-type and placental (I'm thinking the consensus is the later happened at about the same time).

According to this weak hypothetical tree, it fits the assumption of 1. not being reptiles or birds, and 2. not being a mammal. The only problem I can think of is when the stone-changing gene came into play. If it came into play before the first split, then you can toss this tree and plot a new one.
Asatira
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 11:09:59 am EDT from 24.214.68.215

Blaqthourne&CF> The image of Demona crouching and holding her wing is new to me. Nor was the image of Goliath in the "thinker pose", although done many times, ever done as crisply and from the angle shown on the inside cover. The poses on the disk images, although similar to what's been done before, was also never as crisp or well colored. In fact I can't recall if I've seen Demona's pose on the disks at all, but I'll take your word on it since I don't have the "Look and Find" book.
Vashkoda - [vashkoda@glaringdream.org]
D2 <can I have it?>
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 10:05:30 am EDT from 129.98.125.60

Thank you Patrick.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:19:23 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Definition time....

Vivaporous: the embryo develops inside the body of the mother, from which it gains nourishment, and is born live.

Oviporous: the egg is laid; the embryo develops inside it, gains nourishment from a yolk, and hatches.

Ovovivaporous: the egg is retained within the mother's body until it is ready to hatch; the embroyo develops inside it and gains nourishment from a yolk.

All mammals are NOT viviparous animals. The monotremes are oviporous. Furthermore, all vivaporous animals are NOT mammals. Vivaparity also occurs among reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, insects, and fish. Therefore, the method of reproduction alone can not determine which class an animal belongs in.

Similarly, the following logic is FALSE:

Mammals nurse their young.
Gargoyles nurse their young.
Gargoyles are mammals.

This is the same as saying:

Fish have fins.
Dolphins have fins.
Dolphins are fish.

And yes, we've been ignoring the turning to stone thing. And that alone seems to be the BIGGEST clue that gargoyles would not be classified as mammals, but instead belong in their own class, distinct from mammals and reptiles. From the similiarities between mammals and gargoyles, we might infer that the two classes diverged from a common ancestor. But the similarities could also be due to convergent evolution.

GATHERING REMINDERS:

Today's the absolute LAST DAY to pre-register the Gathering 2006.
16 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"The salamander scurries into flame to be destroyed. Imaginary creatures are trapped in birth on celluloid." - Genesis
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:08:13 am EDT from 24.106.128.24

Kevin> "Gargoyles would've been classified by the Romans."
-How can you possibly know that? And even if they did, that doesn't mean their classification wouldn't change as more information about them became available, info the Romans perhaps didn't know. Most importantly, when Gargoyles are revealed to the world in 1996 scientists will scramble to classify them themselves (as we are doing), they won't research what the Romans may have called them.
"Panda Bears aren't bears at all, they were classified under the wrong tree for as long as we knew of them. They are really overgrown raccoons."
-Actually, that debate is still ongoing. Some people say they are part of the racoon branch, some people say they are part of the bear branch, and some people think they represent a survivor of the branching of the two families. Currently, the thinking is that they branched off of the bear branch not long after the racoon/bear branching, making them more closely related to bears, barely.
"Mammals are the only creatures capable on this planet who can nurse their young."
-Yeah, them and Gargates. You seem to have a hard time accepting that Gargates are a whole new group of animals, and they also nurse their young. In my theory, both mammals and gargates are descended from mammal-like reptiles that nursed their young, explaining the similiarity. Not to mention Greg has clearly stated Gargates are not mammals, so thats that. As has been mentioned, we have to make our theories fit with what we've seen in the show and what Greg has told us.
"Frankly I am more inclined to stick Gargoyles under the Mammalian category, with their ancestral tree from the Dinosaur category..."
-Thats not even possible. Gargates can't be mammals descended from dinosaurs because mammals didn't descend from dinosaurs. The closest common ancestor between dinosaurs and mammals was one of the earliest reptiles around 350 million years ago. Shortly after the reptiles evolved one group split off to become the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles and ultimately, the mammals, the other branch went on to evolve into all the modern reptile groups, a few extinct ones, the dinosaurs and the birds.

JJGregarius> "Are gargoyles even animals?"
-Yes, they are animals. Unique animals, but definitly animals. Animals have all sorts of amazing abilities and we still consider them all to be animals.
"I mean c'mon, if gargoyles don't breast feed, what's with the breasts!?"
- No one is disputing whether gargs breast feed or not, we know they do. But the fact that they breastfeed doesn't neccesarily make them mammals.

DPH> "SOmething along the lines of this paragraph:
"Some people believe that a single being or multiple beings created the entire universe through unknown processes. Others believe there is no single being or multiple beings responsible for the creation of the universe. It is up for you, students, to make your decision on your own.". That's about all I would ask for how to cover the origin of things. No need to cover any more details than that."
-Ummm, okay, thats fine if thats all you want to say in a science class, but if you step back and look at that statement you'll see it is pretty pointless. I mean, why bother telling students "Some people believe a higher power created the world, some people don't think a higher power created the world. Ok, now on with the science education..." Doesn't everyone already know this?

I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you want, I'm just defending my position.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:05:50 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Forgive the double post, but I just caught myself. If I remember correctly, a majority of flatworms reproduce asexually. But there are some (like most species of tapeworm) who produce eggs.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"And with that pleasant thought in my head, it's time for breakfast."
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:55:05 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Patrick: I was referring to the record as a whole, but I'm sure that's a big piece of the puzzle.

Kevin: I don't think all gargoyles have scales. The only ones I can think of who might that we've seen would be the ones in Guatemala. And as I think Matt correctly pointed out once, mammals are really the only class that give birth to live young. Every other class on the planet (with some exceptions within those classes) is oviporous. So I wouldn't call egg-laying a trait that gargoyles have in common with reptiles. Retiles themselves have that in common with birds, fish, arthropods, amphibians, flatworms, roundworms, and I believe most cnidarians.

Blaqthorne: Wow. Is there a site that has pictures of this merchandise? The fansite doesn't seem to have pics of the miscellaneous stuff.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"When Jesus was president, he ate babies all the time"
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 6:51:20 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Matt - <What I do care about is that some people, such as yourself, seem to think that all the hundreds of creation theories should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom.> Hundreds? I think we could simplify down to 3-4 basic creatotion theories. SOmething along the lines of this paragraph:
"Some people believe that a single being or multiple beings created the entire universe through unknown processes. Others believe there is no single being or multiple beings responsible for the creation of the universe. It is up for you, students, to make your decision on your own.". That's about all I would ask for how to cover the origin of things. No need to cover any more details than that. <If one wants to teach creation stories in a religion classroom or a literature classroom, I'm very supportive of that. I'm also fine with a moment of silence.> Thank you.

Patrick - <. What constitutes a "day" to an omnipotent, immortal being?> Actually, there have been debates that really does constitute a day based on this passage "a thousand years is as a day . . . and a day is as a thousand years". I've had some interesting thoughts about the definition of eternity. I've heard of some species of insects that only live for weeks. Compared to the life of said species, how long do humans really live? From that insect's pov, we are eternal beings. Yet, we are not. How does one really measure time? Nokkar's race is long-lived, not immortal. But what's the difference to us?

Phil - <Having said that, let me also say that intelligent design IS a scientifically defensible position.> Thank you. <I certainly didn't mean to start a creation vs. evolution argument.> Unless I'm missing my guess, there's no way for any of our arguments to change anybody else's mind. If that's the case, why are we wasting our time with this discussion?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 4:43:23 am EDT from 63.232.251.224

Yes romans do predate modern methods, however, modern methods are based off basic roman design. Romans would say-- OH of course he's a mammal, but he's of the Gargates species or something like that.

Later scientists would've then refined the romans definition but kept mammal (as they've done with soooo many other animals).
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 3:39:58 am EDT from 172.192.198.124

Roman classification>> Thing is, the Romans predate Linnaeus ;-) Their classification wouldn't include Kingdom->Phylum->Class...

The elephant in the room>> Gargoyles can turn into a stone-like structure rapidly. I would think this would require cellular structures like nothing else in Kingdom Animalia. Are gargoyles even animals? Maybe some sort of symbiotic admixtures of an multicellular host and some unicellular organism that has basically become a new organelle in every single cell of the host?

Otherwise, why don't we just make Class Mammalia non-monophylatic, like Class Reptilia, and call it a night? I mean c'mon, if gargoyles don't breast feed, what's with the breasts!?
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 3:36:03 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

Matt and Jurgen HI!:D just wanted to say hi and type your names so I can remember when responding.

Before I go on let me make two things clear:

1. I am not bashing Greg or arguing against his quote. What I am going to say are a few things that maybe he needs to re-look at the whole biological discussion and include some points that we are making (all of us) in his final analysis.

2. I want everyone to go out and buy the soundtrack for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Why? because ummm... it's fun :D

3. If we are to attempt to have a scientific classification we all need to recognize several very distinct truths:

I. Gargoyles would've been classified by the Romans.
II. Romans liked to rename everything. They even took the greek gods and made them ROMAN by changing their names. They took the Phonecian myths and twisted them. They have absolutely no respect for personal beliefs, ok? ok taking that into account we can use the Roman system and make an "intentional mis-classification".

III. Gargoyles wouldn't be the first living thing on earh to be misclassified. Panda Bears aren't bears at all, they were classified under the wrong tree for as long as we knew of them. They are really overgrown raccoons. But because everyone thinks of them as BEARS, scientists recently have given up and just said: "They're not bears, but we'll call them bears just to make it easier- so we don't have to re-write all the textbooks." And just so we all understand each other-- many many many many dinosaurs are not lizards. Some commonly thought of mini-dinos are even considered to be more related to mammals than anything in the dinosaur kingdom.

Why do I say this? well, you'll see later on.

Umm I'll do it alphabetical order:

"I was always under the impression that Gargate was a class, taxonomically speaking. I guess it was because Greg said that they aren't mammals or lizards or anything else; they're gargates. However, they're clearly vertebrates, so I just assumed that since they were in the same phylum but not the same class as mammals, they must be a separate class of vertebrates. Looking through the archives, though, it's not explicitly clear."

EXACTLY Please thank you!:D :cheers for Jurgen:


Matt>>

I just want to toss a few things in support of your statements:
1. ID is permanently tossed out of the school systems, with extreme prejudice (i.e. no way to successfully appeal this ruling for a long time).
2. ID or not, doesn't really matter in this case. Romans believed in their own little idea of creationism, but they still "went forth and classified."

There was something else you said but I totally forgot what it was. I'm a bit tired.

Now onto something:

Ancestors of their evolution or not, Romans were pretty good about all their preliminary attempts to classify things (even before we had our complex system, romans liked to go forth and give names). Nobody would suspect of the link between gargoyles and dinosaurs until maybe 1995-2000. To my knowledge it's not that readily known among the gargoyles or scientists themselves. Greg had to answer that question outside of the series (right?).

Having said that Gargoyles possess the dominate traits which say mammal.

This is where we have a major conflict of classification and ancestry. Science always seems to err in the side of "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a duck" statement.

Gargoyles breathe like ducks.
Notice they do not possess any dominate lizard or dinosaur traits such as;
Smelling with their tongues
Bacterial based poisons - scales/saliva
Regrowing limbs so far hasn't been seen (correct me if I'm wrong but it seems when a gargoyle loses an arm it stays that way).
Pea sized brains (no joke, most reptiles are stupid, with severe deformation in lobes that we identify as creative thoughts/etc..)

Similarities:
Scales
Tails
Eggs

Mammalian Similarities:
Hot blooded
Developed lobes
Mammalian breathing
Taste buds seem to represent mammalian tongues (not all reptiles have these)
and most importantly...........

THEY NURSE THEIR YOUNG!!!!!!

Now here's where there's a big division of scientific classification and reality of what Greg said--

Mammals are the only creatures capable on this planet who can nurse their young. Romans would have said Gargoyles are mammals.

Now, if we use an "intentional missclassification" by following the methods the Romans or any scientist pre-dating the year 2000 would have used-- we can do this without anymore help from greg.

If we are trying to classify them as an entirely new race evolved from Dinosaurs then we have a major problem on our hands in that anything is just a shot in the dark, making up words to make them fit into an imaginary classification of which only Greg knows the real answer.

See what I'm saying? We'd have as good of a chance of classifying them under made up names and made up classifications as we do giving Greg an unsolicited manuscript for a new Gargoyles series set in South America. That's just the way I see this turning out.

Now if Greg answered some specific questions about biology, or if he actually reads this post and goes through some night and gives us those types of answers, then everything would be cool and kosher.


Frankly I am more inclined to stick Gargoyles under the Mammalian category, with their ancestral tree from the Dinosaur category, and just saying that they had such a close parallel evolution to mammals that they are in the mammal category. That way we can actually put a more concise and logical classification on these guys :D
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 2:38:08 am EDT from 172.192.198.124

Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury> I think the artwork on the inside box is new or just a revamped image due to the fact if you look at it the goliath and demona images closely, from an artists perspective you can see that they are using the new anime cell coloring style which would not have been used back when gargoyles was on air.

warcrafter>Hehe oh good I was a bit scared when the poster came first. Glad you like the stuff. HOpe to see you at the gathering.
Shara
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 2:32:05 am EDT from 4.246.215.211

Vashkoda> I don't think any of the artwork included in the S2-V1 DVD is new. The front cover has been used on many things, such as one of the puzzles, the queen of every suit in the playing cards. The Hudson used on disc 2 is a mirror image of the 5 of every suit, a colorform piece, and other things. The artwork on the flap under Discs 1 & 2 is the colorform background that you stick all the pieces onto. The Demona used on the disc content flap is a mirror image of what was used in the Look and Find book. The two Goliath's on the back are on the front of, and the November artwork in, the 1996 calendar.
Those are what I could find without digging through boxes, but I'm sure I could find the other pieces of artwork used.
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury
"Hey, if they lugged Bronx along, the situation's got to be serious."
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 1:44:43 am EDT from 4.230.255.2

I was always under the impression that Gargate was a class, taxonomically speaking. I guess it was because Greg said that they aren't mammals or lizards or anything else; they're gargates. However, they're clearly vertebrates, so I just assumed that since they were in the same phylum but not the same class as mammals, they must be a separate class of vertebrates. Looking through the archives, though, it's not explicitly clear.

The other problem with calling creationism or ID science is that it doesn't use the scientific method. One of the main tenets of said method is falsification: you come up with a hypothesis, which is basically a guess, that can potentially be disproven, and then you do your best to disprove it. If you're unable to disprove it, then you say that the evidence supports it, but does not prove it. For instance, let's say that my hypothesis is that heavy objects fall at the same rate as light objects. To disprove this, I would need to find a heavy and a light object that fall at different rates. Also, to make sure that it was the weight that caused the different speeds, I would have to ensure that they had the same air resistance. If I was unable to find two such objects, then I would say that the evidence supports my hypothesis. That is exactly what Galileo did five hundred years ago when he dropped balls off the leaning tower, and since then no one has ever been able to disprove his hypothesis. There is no test that could conclusively disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, so it cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. The great irony, though, is that in the flailing attempts creationists make at discrediting evolution, they actually make it stronger by showing that it cannot easily be debunked- at least, not without replacing it with a far more complicated theory. And there is no necessary conflict between evolution and religion. Why is it so difficult for some to say that God created the universe through evolution? A very good friend of our family is a biologist and is also very religious. He spends lots of time arguing against creationism and the attempt to force it into science classrooms, and then goes to church on Sunday and sings in the choir. He doesn't see any contradiction there, and neither do I.

Oh, and I'm probably okay with a moment of silence, so long as they don't call it "a moment for silent prayer," or something else suggestive like that.
Jurgan - [jurgan6@yahoo.com]
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 1:42:01 am EDT from 68.58.253.131

Sorry for the double post. I meant to put "I" instead of "the" before finally. Damn grammar mistakes.
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
My friend got a python with a 300 chrisler kit on it and whenever he stops at a red light, the rims stay still but the car starts moving................oh, and one more thing.....DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 1:33:47 am EDT from 69.231.206.232

Shara> The only episode of House that I recall had Salli Richardson in it was the episode Sports Medicine where she played Sharon. I don't think she's part of the full cast. Oh, by the way, the finally got the free Gargoyles S2 V1 in the mail, along with a poster and a whole lot of other stuff. Thank you for it all. :)
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
My friend got a python with a 300 chrisler kit on it and whenever he stops at a red light, the rims stay still but the car starts moving................oh, and one more thing.....DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 1:30:47 am EDT from 69.231.206.232

Vash>Good to see you agian. Thanks agian for advertizing about the webcomic on your site. We will get the hang of having a monthly comic up soon. We actully have them done but never got all the text up on them and have had time to update. That will change after the gathering. Neato about the season 2 dvd's. Thanks for commenting back on that. I really think greg is a great speaker we are really blessed to have him as a creator of the show. Everytime I listen to the intros on thoughs shows I learn something I never knew about gargoyles.

Does anyone watch House MD on fox? Salli Richardson is a character on that show.
Shara
posted @ Wed, Jun 7, 2006 12:31:07 am EDT from 4.246.209.248

Sorry for the double post.

Just another note about that quote from Greg: He would be the first to claim that he is no biologist, but I wanted to point out an error he made. Mammals actually evolved before dinosaurs, so to say that gargates predate mammals means they can't have evolved from dinosaurs.

Thats all I've got.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 11:49:49 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Vash> Okay, I got your point, I thought you were talking to me though. Thats a good quote from Greg. It makes it clear that Gargates are neither descended from dinosaurs nor mammals. By saying Gargates evolved before mammals he also makes it clear that they are not descended from Pterodactyls which I think a lot of people think they might be.
All in all, I'd say that given that quote, my theory about them evolving from a branch of the mammal-like reptiles is more likely to be fact at this point...

or at least as much of fact as the possible biological evolution of a fictional species in a cartoon can be...
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 11:47:03 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

Matt> Bless Gore, all I had to do was type "dinosaur" in the AG search box and got all the evolution posts in the archive. Most of them were from you, so I see you've argued this point to death with Greg, but the best quote I have from him is "Gargoyles pre-date mammals in my mind. Whether they evolved from dinosaurs or beside dinosaurs is another question." I could really care less whether they came from dinosaurs or not; the point I was making was that they did not evolve down the same genetic line as mammals. At least about that, Greg was clear.
Vashkoda - [vashkoda@glaringdream.org]
D2 <can I have it?>
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 11:38:24 pm EDT from 129.98.125.60

Good thoughts everyone about creationism (in whatever form).

Vash> "So Greg has already laid down some rules, such as gargates being descended from dinosaurs"
-Do you have a quote on that? From what I remember, Greg only said they evolved from dinosaurs depending on how you define dinosaurs. Some people consider the pterodactlids to be dinosaurs, but they are not. Birds could scientifically be referred to as dinosaurs, but we usually don't. And most of the mammal-like reptiles, such as Dimetrodon, are considered by many people to be dinosaurs even though they are not. Greg, as far as I know, never said they were definitely descended from dinosaurs, real dinosaurs. If you can quote Greg, that'd be good.
"the main cast gargoyles being designed so that the wings showed vestigial remains of an extra set of hands, so that the fingers were either incorporated into the wing ribs or stuck out of the ends like Demona and Brooklyn's (you'll see that those with just one wing spike have wing ribs, and those with wing hands have none). Obviously though, with later gargoyle designs, the artists didn't seem to care about staying consistent."
-I've noticed that too. But I think you are being rough on the character designers. If the wings did evolve from a hand-like limb they would have 3 fingers and a thumb like the gargoyle hand. And as someone mentioned earlier, its easier to lose something in evolution than to gain it. So while many gargoyles have different amounts of digits on their wings, none of them have more than four. Lexington has only one digit on each wing. Desdemona has two digits on each wing, etc. The only exception to this is some members of Clan Ishimura, such as Kai, who have more than four digits on each wing. This is probably a regional mutation, since no other Clans show this. The Ishimuran gargs seem to have a lot of digit mutations. You'll notice Sora only has two toes on each foot, and Yama's wings are truly bizarre in comparison to the typical gargoyle wing.

Phil> Dude, you know I respect you, but you are wrong. In my opinion, Intelligent Design is not a scientifically defensible position. The whole theory is based on a huge assumption that there is something out there powerful enough and intelligent enough to create all of life. And there is no scientific evidence to back that up. Thats not to say there isn't a powerful, intelligent designer, but there is no hard evidence of it and so making a theory based on the assumption there is and then saying it is scientifically defensible is ludicrous. Answers in Genesis ignores all the questions they can't answer. Or don't want to. They mysteriously leave out their guess on who this intelligent creator is (Aliens? Time-traveling humans? A supernatural god or gods?) though I'll bet I could guess who they might think did it. They also don't stop to consider how this intelligent designer produced all the life. Was there an assembly line churning out mushrooms and elephants and tulips? Was there a big lab perfecting the design of yeast? Why would anyone, no matter how intelligent go through all the trouble? What is their motive? And most importantly, in the name of science, how can we test any of these claims? How can we do experiments? A theory without any test or experimentation is only called a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is all Intelligent Design is, and not a very sound one at that.

DPH> I don't want to bash anyone's beliefs, but if you bring them into a scientific arena they are open for debate. The Universe is billions of years old. Life is billions of years old. Animal life is hundreds of millions of years old. Scientifically, there is very little doubt to this. Creation myths may have estimated time frames all over the place, but science, which is based on evidence and repeated testing of that evidence supports the theory of a universe that is billions of years old.
I don't care if you want to teach other theories of origin to students. What I do care about is that some people, such as yourself, seem to think that all the hundreds of creation theories should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom. Pardon me, but that is absurd. No scientist has ever demanded that evolution be taught in any religion classroom and that is because that is not its place. Creation myths are not science. Science does not support them usually and they generally are not even using science to come to a conclusion, but rather speculation and folklore retellings of a story. I for one say that only scientific theories should be taught in a science classroom. If one wants to teach creation stories in a religion classroom or a literature classroom, I'm very supportive of that.
I'm also fine with a moment of silence. I believe people of all faiths (or lack of faith) can benefit from that and a moment of silence certainly won't hurt anyone.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 10:11:19 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

HoE > "Metal motion comes in bursts, but the gas station can quench that thirst."
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 9:43:50 pm EDT from 66.72.196.76

I wasn't going to say anything, but it looks like we're getting on the defensive, no matter the stance. I, as a zoologist, have my personal faith in God and still believe Darwinian evolution is an accurate representation of how things came to be and what influences things now and into the future. The two are not mutually exclusive. I have a problem with Intelligent Design because it does not follow the scientific process; Darwinian evolution for the most part does. It can be tested, proven wrong, and a different theory for how species A came to be and may be closely related to species B and C, but more distantly to D. Intelligent design is reactionary.

I conclude with a post someone once made based on Gaiman and Pratchett's character Crowley from "Good Omens." Those who aren't familiar, Crowley is a demon, and on orders from his superiors will push Intelligent Design because it "Pisses everyone off."

*has drawn her own line in the sand*
Asatira
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 8:12:57 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

Whitbourne: But there are answers in Genesis. I find that most problems can be solved if I think about them hard enough while drinking and listening to "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway." I actually solved the energy crisis doing that. Unfortunately, I couldn't read my writing the next morning.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"When Jesus was president, he ate babies all the time"
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 8:11:56 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

"Answers in Genesis" is a shill site for reactionary evangelicals peddling their own viewpoint , one that has no reliable scientific evidence and relies wholly on people accepting one religious viewpoint with exclusion to all others. I've put up the link for the talk.origins archive, which discusses the theory of evolution, natural selection, and evolutionary biology at great length, but also gives the scientific references and rationale for its statements. Altogether a much, much, much more reliable source than "Answers in Genesis".

DPH, evolution has nothing to with atheism. Nothing. It, like all other real science, has absolutely nothing to say about the presence or absence of any god. God, and the discussion thereof, is not addressed by any scientific theory because no scientific theory can prove or disprove its absence. Stating that evolution promotes atheism is one of the most disingenious things I've ever heard, and you really ought to know better.

And need I remind everyone of a recent Massachusetts court decision which blasted proponents of "intelligent design", stating that it is, in essence, just a thinly disguised carbon-copy of evangelical-inspired creationism? I'd say that one's more the one to watch for pushing a religious viewpoint, not Darwin's theories.

By all means, feel free to talk about them, but stop pretending they're science.
Whitbourne
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:58:42 pm EDT from 142.177.236.211

GXB - <Was that necessary? Really?> Yes, to distance myself from the extreme fringe. I know of some who make my positions look moderate and I do not want to be identified with that crowd. I'm proud of the groups in all religions who help protect the other religion's right to practice religion, even if it hurts their support.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:49:43 pm EDT from 63.232.223.182

<< matt - <The Theory of Evolution is not based on the assumption that there is no god.> But that big assumption is what lead to that theory being created. Explain to me, how without teaching the possibility of intelligent design, that you are not effectively teaching atheism? >>

No, Matt was right. One doesn't have to assume the non-existance of God to accept the theory of evolution. It's only the Biblical literalists who feel threatened by anything that claims that life on earth was not created 6,000 years ago over a period of seven days. What constitutes a "day" to an omnipotent, immortal being? Why do some Christian sects cling so literally to some texts of the Bible, but conveniently ignore others? Show me a creationist eating pork ribs at the church social, and I'll show you a hypocrite.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 6:52:32 pm EDT from 70.229.203.227

PHIL - Maybe you should have included a smiley at the end of that sentence. (That's one problem with written as opposed to oral communicaton; with oral communication, you can make it clear that you're kidding through your tone of voice, which isn't available in written communication.)
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 6:44:56 pm EDT from 4.245.22.209

DPH> "And before you ask, yes, I would let Muslim students, Christian students, etc have time at the beginning of the school day for a moment of silence to pray non-verbally."

Was that necessary? Really?
Greg Bishansky - [<---- The Tenth Annual Gathering of the Gargoyles]
"I am The Decider!" - President George Walker Bush
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 6:32:54 pm EDT from 68.199.4.45

Patrick - < And I find particularly absurd the creation theories that say the earth is less than 6,000 years old.> And I find it particularly absurd to hear theories everything is millions, if not billions (or is it trillions now?) of years old.

matt - <The Theory of Evolution is not based on the assumption that there is no god.> But that big assumption is what lead to that theory being created. Explain to me, how without teaching the possibility of intelligent design, that you are not effectively teaching atheism? You can't teach any theory of origin without effectively promoting one belief system or another. All I'm asking for is teaching competing belief systems or none at all.

And before you ask, yes, I would let Muslim students, Christian students, etc have time at the beginning of the school day for a moment of silence to pray non-verbally.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 6:14:28 pm EDT from 63.232.248.5

I am starting to regret my comment about God having created gargoyles on the sixth day. I merely threw that in because of a response that Greg made in "Ask Greg" about where gargoyles came from. Basically, if you believe in evolution, gargoyles evolved, and if you believe in creation, then gargoyles were created. In that particular post he was not advocating either one, specifially. The crux of his comment was that gargoyles were not created magically or artificially.

I certainly didn't mean to start a creation vs. evolution argument. Having said that, let me also say that intelligent design IS a scientifically defensible position. I (like many others here) am not an expert, so I'm not well versed enough to enter a debate. But anyone who is interested I would direct to an organization called "Answers in Genesis". Click on my name for the link.
Phil - [p1anderson@go.com]
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 2:33:52 pm EDT from 69.129.121.95

It's sad when it's been so long since you left a post, all your settings are gone. Finally updated GNC though, and figured I'd drop by here. Might as well dive right in.

Jurgan: <See also Weapons of Mass Destruction> haha, nice

Ellen: Well said. Reminds me why I think math and physics are boring (where's the challenge in working with absolute facts? I'd much rather work in a field where no one really knows wth is going on).

Gargoyle genealogy: As frustrating as it is to work within the confines of Greg's definitions, anything that ignores them is simply conjecture (as ironic as that is, since we're dealing with a fantastical species in an alternate "magical" universe). So Greg has already laid down some rules, such as gargates being descended from dinosaurs (it should be pointed out that we, along with the rest of our mammalian brethren, are not), and so any guesswork saying that they were descended from platypi or whatever is false. Any resemblance is, as someone said, probably due to similar environmental pressures causing convergent evolution. I made a page with my theories on Gargoyle evolution about 8 or 9 years ago if anyone's curious (http://crossroads.dragonmists.org/fantasy/avalon/Biology.html). Though this was before Greg started leaning towards thermal energy absorbtion as opposed to light energy.

extra limbs: semi-off topic, but this just makes me think of Anne McCaffrey's Pern pooks. All the indigenous species on that planet had six limbs and a boron-based skeleton, though I can't remember if the reason for the boron was to make the wings lighter. Here's another semi-off-topic topic. The "The Last" Team Atlantis episode is canon Gargoyles Universe, and includes the lava-whale creature Obby, another 6-limbed beast. Wonder how he fits in all this, eh?

wing fingers: Way way way back, someone (Greg W. or Greg G. maybe?) had posted/said something about the main cast gargoyles being designed so that the wings showed vestigal remains of an extra set of hands, so that the fingers were either incorporated into the wing ribs or stuck out of the ends like Demona and Brooklyn's (you'll see that those with just one wing spike have wing ribs, and those with wing hands have none). Obviously though, with later gargoyle designs, the artists didn't seem to care about staying consistent.

DNA similarities: The thing about humans and chimps sharing 97-99% of their DNA really doesn't mean much. We have so much junk DNA in us that never gets used for anything that we could probably design a whole bunch of strange looking creatures just with our own DNA as a template, turning on and off different genes.

Shara> I just got the DVD too, because Amazon keeps messing up my shipments. I enjoyed Greg's intros as well, and of course the Cast/Crew interviews. I liked the images of the gargoyles that swept past the actors as they talked, and the background music they used throughout the DVD. And some of the artwork used on the disks and inside cover was new (I always like seeing official-looking art of the gargoyles in poses I've never seen. It's once thing I always liked about fanart drawn in the show's original style; I think CrzD's work was the closest I've seen to emulating it).

Finally, in an attempt to make this post meaningful, go take a look at the new beta TGS site Lady Mystic cooked up and tell her what you think. Or register for the con since tomorrow is the last day you can do so and save yourself some money. Or get an early start on your con journal and leave a bunch of blanks you can fill in later (it will make your life much easier, trust me).
Vashkoda - [vashkoda@glaringdream.org]
D2 <can I have it?>
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 1:23:37 pm EDT from 129.98.125.60

Prehensile tails are still tails. They are well-adapted tails, yes, but they are not limbs. All mammals have a tail or the vestigial remnants of a tail. An elephant's trunk is not a limb, either, despite how the animal can use it.

Re: Creationism - I personally find the term "creation scientist" to be an oxymoron. I haven't heard a creation theory yet that's included a sound explanation for the dinosaurs and other fossil findings of the past two centuries. And I find particularly absurd the creation theories that say the earth is less than 6,000 years old.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:53:04 pm EDT from 24.106.128.24

"They have six limbs, whereas all known mammals have four."

Don't some mammals have five limbs? i.e., monkeys with prehensile tails. They're able to use their tails with as much versatility as an arm or leg.

I don't have time to go into detail on evolution vs. creationism, but I will say this: The only thing that might be considered an article of faith in science is that the scientific method is a good way about learning about the world. Everything science does is based on observable fact, and theories are created to explain those facts. This differs from mathematics, in which we simply assume certain postulates are true and prove results called theorems, which are then absolutely true in that mathematical structure. In science, it's impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, so scientists create theories that fit the facts as well as possible. They also try to be as simple as possible while still accounting for all of the facts (Occam's Razor). Scientists do not start with the assumption that there is no God, but since it is impossible to offer empirical proof that God exists, supernatural occurrences are left out of science. In fact, by definition supernatural beings are not part of science, since if they could be explained scientifically they would no longer be supernatural, but natural. The problem with "Creation Science" (or "Intelligent Design," or whatever they call it now) is that, rather than start with facts and try to formulate a theory, Creation Scientists start with a theory and then try to make the facts fit it. If you know what you want to believe, you can make the facts fit almost anything. This is one of the most common logical fallacies I know- exaggerating facts that support your opinion while playing down those that disagree with it. See also Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Hmmm, it seems I was lying when I said I didn't have time to get into it.
Jurgan - [jurgan6@yahoo.com]
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 11:29:07 am EDT from 68.58.253.131

Well said, Ellen. While I don't want to get into either a scientific or religious debate since i don't feel I'm totally qualified on either front, I really can't agree with the idea that both evolution and creationism are working backwards from preconcieved notions. The fact that a scientist believes that life on earth evolved and continues to involve does not necessarily require that he or she start with the assumtpion that there is no God. Creationism, on the other hand, rests entirely on the assumption that God is responsible for the shape of life on earth today. And scientificly, the existance of God has not been proven. It hasn't been disproven either, but I don't believe scientific method really allows you to consider something a theory simply due to lack of proof to the contrary.

Also, my understanding is that the thing that's a theory is Darwin's interpretation of evolution: that the process works to ensure that the fittest organisms are the one that survive and reproduce. The actual process of life on earth changing over time is much less up for debate. In addition to the existing fossil record, we have evidence that has happened withing the space of human history, such as certain species of moth becoming greyer to better camoflauge in smog afftected environments.

If you're curious and want a better explanation, I suggest turning to the far more eloquent and knowedgeable than me Stephen Jay Gould.
Demonskrye
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 9:55:24 am EDT from 67.100.23.24

Thanks Ellen, exactly what I was about to say and probably said more clearly.

DPH> I am very familiar with Creation Science and it has become clear to me that:
1. Creation Science isn't based on experiment. It is based on speculation and assumption. Speculation and assumption are fine, but we shouldn't teach those in a science classroom until we do some experimentation to see if those assumptions are wrong. Creation scientists do not do this experimentation and therefore are not practicing science. Only Speculation about how things are, or were.
2. Most of Creation scientists time and energy is spent trying to destroy opposing views. They too often feel that even if they could bring down the Theory of Evolution that would make their theories more right, but they are wrong. In science, just because one theory is falsified doesn't mean another one is correct. Creation scientists seem to have a problem understanding how to practice true science.

The Theory of Evolution is not based on the assumption that there is no god. I know many people who believe in god and in evolution. God is a supernatural being and is therefore outside the realms of science. No scientists can prove there is or is not a god.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 9:51:15 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Dph_of_rules: Don't fall into the semantic trap of evolution being "only a theory." A "theory," in science, is a conclusion that explains all the available data, and which continues to be supported by new data. Scientists don't start with the assumption, as you imply, that there is no God - at least, not within the confines of their work. That's not part of their job. Instead, in formulating what they call theories, they start with the assumption that no one can possess all the data in existence. They use the term "theory," then, to avoid that mathematical absolute (and impossibility) of complete knowledge and to distinguish their conclusions from what they term "facts," which are the empirical data collected to formulate and support their conclusions ("theories"). Hence, in scientific terms, the notion of the earth being round is referred to as a "theory" as well - no person can know all the data associated with the earth being round, but all the evidence anyone has collected so far supports it. (Hence, in turn, the reason people "believe" scientific theories.)

Remember also that, in science, one of the tests of theories and models being accepted as such is that they can be proven false. In other words, they're open to the possibility of new data turning up that contradicts what the old data supports. If creation scientists don't present theories and models that could feasibly be contradicted by data that anyone, under similar circumstances, could collect and observe - physical evidence that there is no God, for example - then, technically, they're not theories or models (scientific ones, anyway).
Ellen
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 8:24:29 am EDT from 64.12.116.8

Kevin: It's becoming more and more clear that you either
A) are really not reading all of, or comprehending any of, the posts that most people have been making to you. (We say statements with facts to back them up, and then you ignore those facts and continue to proclaim yourself to be right while citing reasons that we have already proved to be inaccurate or fallible. Among other things, I have tried to use wiki for a reference for taxonomy and have found it confusing about the topic at best compared to most other sources on the subject. Please look up some actual books - or scientific websites - and do some serious reading about this topic if you want your theories about it to not be blown off as uninformed egotistical blustering. We may be in the realm of pseudo-science, but most of us talking about it have tried to get a handle on the real science behind it, from sources a bit more reliable than the "anyone can type up an entry" wikipedia.)
Or
B) You know exactly what we have been saying, and are conscientiously ignoring our facts because you are a Griefer, and enjoy seeing us who actually care a little about these subjects get into a tizzy and waste our time trying to prove you wrong on things you actually already know you are wrong about.

Either way, as more of us stop responding to your posts, you should be aware it is not because we have realized the might of your intellect and are bowing to it, but that we have realized you just are not worth debating with.

And I wasn't talking to *you* about the wing/heat discussion, I was talking to the room, and those already chatting about it. Which I suspect you already know.
Lynati
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:28:27 am EDT from 70.245.206.167

"I don't believe it's wholly incorrect to use Monotremes since it's such a vague sub class to begin with."

The classification system is based how closely animals are related to each other in a "family tree" of the animal kingdom. The layman's description need not be any more complex than "egg-laying mammals" because there are so few of them. "Warm-blooded egg-layers" is not a valid description. Birds are warm blooded and lay eggs. They are clearly not mammals. Gargoyles share some traits in common with mammals, but they have major differences, as well. They have six limbs, whereas all known mammals have four. They turn to "stone" during the day by some process that is completely unseen in the rest of the animal kingdom. As such, it's highly unlikely that they are in any way related to the monotremes.

Weird fact of the day: Did you know that during World War II, a serious research project was undertaken into attaching tiny incindiary bombs to bats, which would then be released over Japan?

1 day left to pre-register under the extended deadline.
17 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:06:07 am EDT from 70.229.203.227

Warcrafter: And here we are discussing scientific evolution, one of God's favorite topics. Ah, well. We lived through January 1st, 2000, we'll live through this.

Reno: Yeah, a comparison would be interesting. I mean, London gargoyles resemble animals, for some reason, and even within the Scottish clan, we have diversity: some with beaks, some with "web-wings", some whose facial features are more "human" than others. And that's just on the same island.

Intellectual discussions are nice. Unfortunately, one of us always seems to be busy. Maybe we should have more of them in here.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"666 is no longer alone."
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 6:47:29 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

Kevin - <Was that all during their avalon trip/adventures? > *thinks about a polite answer to this question* Let's apply some basic logic here. If the entire clan is in Manhattan, how can they meet other gargoyles across the world? The short answer is, given their present circumstances, they can't. Therefore, this meeting with other gargoyle clans must have occurred during the Avalon world tour.

I might suggest you go to www.gargoyles-fans.org and read up on some episodes. Most episodes from season 2 have a summary.

Matt - < I have no problems with the teaching of any origin theory in a science class as long as science backs it up. Science backs up evolution, but does not back up Creationism/Intelligent Design.> I take it that you've never read up on Creation Science? You still miss the point that evolution as a means of the origin of human kind is a *theory*. The big point of that science is 1 big assumption: since there is no god, how did we get here. There is no way to get around that evolution as the origin of human existance is a theory of origin that people believe in. Creation Science starts with a different assumption and seeks to prove it.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 4:58:41 am EDT from 63.232.255.150

JJ>

?!:O

Well, it was on during the year that I came over to Denver and I did miss about half of one of the seasons. Then they just stopped showing it. That must've been what happened :/

Was that all during their avalon trip/adventures? Cause I only saw a couple of those boating episodes after they visited Avalon on my days off work :(

Grr I only asked if other gargoyles from other parts of the world were mentioned/shown about 50 times >:P
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 1:50:47 am EDT from 172.194.161.173

Kevin>>
There are entire episodes devoted to gargoyles in Japan, England and Guatemala.

There are many episodes that will be new to you on Toon Disney. If you have seen the entire series, you have forgotten significant portions of it.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 1:16:26 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

Lynati ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification
Gargates is an improper form for "Class" classification of scientific order. I was just trying to match it up with with the proper form as according to scientific classification.

I found Monotremata in a sub class category, if that's incorrect please give a correct sub class. I was reading wiki and it isn't that great of a source for material.

Now see this is where I believe Greg needs to be more involved in discussion on the matter, but Disney's legal reasons probably prohibit this. That's why it seems impossible to me to even attempt to do what you are doing (scientific classification) without Greg's active involvement in explaining the biological circumstances of Gargoyles.

As I said before, any scientist will classify gargoyles under mammalia Class due to them being warm blooded and breast feeders. If Greg wants it in a completely different class, that's cool, it is, but in that case it wouldn't hurt for him to provide more information.

Scales might push them over to another side, but since it's internationally recognized there are only what does it say... it's too late my eyes are shot and I can't read it, but it is 4 or so main class types I think. These classes are broad classes. Thus creating an entirely new class would really require an entirely completely different biology from anything else on earth. Maybe Greg should do a biology of Gargoyles handbook.

The living Skeleton with Goliath and Demona :D That'd work.

But yeah, umm gargates isn't really in the proper form to be a "Class" from what it reads here :s that's why I stuck it down in "Order". Feel free to stick it back up.


"I'm not sure why you are bringing location into it at the Sub-order level, especially not when all gargoyles fall into the same Family. "

Umm... lots of animals have location involved in their scientific name. Heck, have you even looked at breeding lists for cats?

And again as for location it was just a suggestion which would make classification a lot more streamlined, especially if you consider that these gargoyles are all isolated. i.e. don't travel abroad to mix with other gargs from other geological locations.

This seems to be suggested as the truth of the matter, especially since we don't really know about other gargoyle cultures.

Smallest variation can justify a class. Not only that, but to my knowledge Greg hasn't discussed grgoyles from OTHER areas, has he? Listing Goliath's clan as Europa would leave it open for Greg to create entirely different gargoyles but under the same Order.


"(We seem to have reached a consensus that the beasts and "upright" gargs seperate at the Genus level, after looking at the rest of the animal kingdom and seeing where such divisions lay.)"

I'm sorry but in looking at the Genus Level the genus is always the parent family prefix, it is never the subsequent divisions.

i.e.:

Genus = Homo
Species = Homo-erectus, Homo-neanderthalensis, Homo-floresiensis are all clearly under species category.

You would have to have a really and I mean really completely diverse genetic structure for feralus and nocturnus to be at the Genus level. Now, I will admit, many people like to put said divisions in the Genus category, but that's not really correct.

And Lyanti, I am not arguing against any theories of Thermo. What I was posing as an argument is Gargoyles supposedily had been classified long ago, and log ago, nobody -- not even the gargoyles would have know the reason why they sleep is because of the thermo quality. Therefore it would make little sense to put thermo or some such in the name. That was my only point.


Matt> I understand what you say about my concerns over the name sapiens in the scientific classification.

However, I must point out that there have been missclassifications before which science is too lazy to change (monkeys especially weren't really divided from other apes in certain aspects of classification until really 1970s).
But I still stand by my objections for sapiens for a few reasons:

1. The discussion of gargoyles not being in the mammalia family at all.
2. The fact that the only definitions of sapiens says "of the simian/ape" family.
3. It would move Gargoyles that much closer in relation to Humans and I really get the strong impression that Greg doesn't want that at all. Like I said above, most of this is something Greg should be doing or holding a contest or some such.

"And putting Gargates as a subclass of Monotremes is not likely."

Yes I understand the objection, but.. the Monotremes subclass is very very very very vague, just referring to "warm blooded egg layers".

I don't believe it's wholly incorrect to use Monotremes since it's such a vague sub class to begin with.

I spent about a half hour trying to figure the sub class out, and unless Greg comes up with something specific, the sub class categories really slate gargoyles into the Monotremes class. I say that because almost all the other classes really seem to be under fungal, non-egg layers, insects, plants or bacteria.
Kevin - [dalbozofgurth@aol.com]
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:47:19 am EDT from 172.194.161.173

kjay> Desdemona does not have wings that "end with fingers".

And gargoyle forms evolved based on how cool they would look.
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury
"Hey, if they lugged Bronx along, the situation's got to be serious."
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:26:19 am EDT from 4.230.255.223

Matt: aye, that's true. Would be interesting to compare clans from Northern Europe, South/Central America, Central Asia, Africa, and the Pacific Rim. But alas, we were only exposed to a small spattering of those. Perhaps all we'll have is speculation, however scientifically (or attempting to be in my case) based those guesses may be. Thank's for the intellectual discusion!
Reno
Well if we're going to bare our souls...why don't I go first?
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:25:23 am EDT from 24.205.105.243

Snakes and lizards both evolved from a common ancestor that had four legs. Over time, snakes, for the most part completly lost their legs. There are a few snakes that have vestigial hind legs that are very small and mostly useless, but they are neat to look at because they are only an inch long with a single clawed toe. Some lizards also lost their legs independently of the snake evolution. So although they look very similiar, legless lixards and snakes are not the same things.

The only female gargoyles we've seen with the hands on the wings were Obsidiana, Demona and Angela (and yes, Elisa in "The Mirror") and since Angela is Demona's daughter the fact that they both share the trait is hardly surprising.
Ophelia, Una, Turquesa, and Sora all had wings of other varieties.

Reno> Yeah, I think that is a possibility. We don't have a ton of evidence to support it though.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:21:50 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Aw jeez, I know that if I go to school today, barely anybody is going to be there since today is....you know. Oh well, maybe after seeing The Omen, I might not be so paranoid.
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
My friend got a python with a 300 chrisler kit on it and whenever he stops at a red light, the rims stay still but the car starts moving................oh, and one more thing.....DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:17:30 am EDT from 71.152.34.201

Matt: Ah, yes I think that would be a reasonable deduction to the varied structure, from a biological standpoint anyway, of the different wing designs. In areas of the world with lots of high places (like, say, forests) the need to fully fuctional and seperated wings wouldn't be as strong, and since less weight and size translates to lower energy requirements, it would be easy to figure the web-winged (Lex's) wing design would be more useful. However along coastal areas where there is little to climb up , the collection of rising thermals would be more important and the need for dedicated wing members could give rise to the wing structures of all the others. As clans later mixed and matched, the trait for one wing type or another became mixed together and bingo, varied wing structures. Could be the same reason some gargs have a single talon on their wings, and some two, and others three, and still others none. I wonder if coloration had anything to do with environment, of if it's just coincidence at this point?
Reno
Well if we're going to bare out souls...why don't I go first?
posted @ Tue, Jun 6, 2006 12:16:25 am EDT from 24.205.105.243

Kjay : Keep in mind that we haven't seen nearly as many female gargoyles as we have males.
Spen
Why do people always use sports metephors when they want you to do somthing stupid? - David Swaine
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 11:57:38 pm EDT from 216.248.119.208

dph_of_rules> Since Season 2 volume 1 was officially announced in August 2005(see link), I'm waiting 'till August this year before I officially start to panic.
A Lex
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 11:23:06 pm EDT from 211.28.141.135

Snakes>I read somewhere that snakes once had legs but then lost them. I don't remember if this was a scientific fact or if this was said to explain the "Adam and eve" story in which Gob curse the snake to crawl because he tricked man or something like that.
There is a trait I noticed with Gargs, The females always have the wings that end with fingers and never have the bat-like wings the males mostly have (except for brooklyn and a few others).
kjay - [tigonesskay@netzero.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 9:38:33 pm EDT from 69.112.127.60

Patrick> "Snakes have no limbs but are closely related to lizards. A few species of lizards also have no limbs, though most species have four. So there's nothing inherently unusual about one species of gargoyles having six limbs while the other species has only four."
-True, but keep in mind that the snake and lizard lines branched away from each other perhaps 120 million years ago during the Cretaceous. In the grand scheme of things, that is a recent branching, but Gargoyles and Beasts are almost certainly more closely related than that, maybe branching apart in the last dozen million years or so, this makes the limb count much more striking.

Reno> "I actually thought that limb differentiation (split versus single wings) could be indicative of differing sub-species that over countless eons have blurred together."
- Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps during the brief golden period when Gargoyles dominated the world there was a migration similiar to the melting pot of America in the last century resulting in the diversity even within one Clan, such as the Wyvern/Manhattan/Avalon Clan. Maybe Lex's ancestors mostly came from one part of the world, while Brook's came from another. Interesting idea.

DPH> "But any theory of origins is a religion. That's my problem with the current teaching. I would rather not teach 'theories' of origin in any science class than not present any alternatives."
- I have no problems with the teaching of any origin theory in a science class as long as science backs it up. Science backs up evolution, but does not back up Creationism/Intelligent Design. If another scientific origin theory was discovered and science overwhelmingly supported it, as it does with evolution, I would see no problem with teaching it and evolution in a science classroom, or even replacing the Theory of Evolution with it. The thing is that in a scientific classroom it is imperative that we only teach from a scientific context. I have no personal problems with any of the hundreds of creation theories that exist. I do have a problem if someone wants them to be taught in a science class even if the science doesn't support them, or even worse, falsifies them. What is the point of having a science class if we don't teach science in it?

A note on Gargoyle limbs> Throughout the course of the past few days I've done a bit of a turn-around in my thinking. A week ago I would've guessed that both Gargoyles and Beasts evolved from a Gargate ancestor with only four limbs. Now I think some of you guys (including, incidently, Greg W.) were correct. I think most or all of the first Gargates had six limbs and that the Beasts (and perhaps others) lost their wings.
That said, I still think the new limbs evolved from the sails on the mammal-like reptiles backs. However, I do think it is possible that a mutation caused a pair of limbs to grow where the sail structure was supposed to be. These limbs were perhaps arm like in many ways, explaining why Demona and Brooklyn's wings seem very hand-like, but they would've also been webbed like the spines of the sail were. This was creating the first wing surface. So, in short, maybe it didn't go:
Sail ---> Split Sail ---> Protowings ---> True Gliding Wings
But perhaps:
Sail + Mutation ---> Sail Modified by Misplaced Limb Mutation ---> Protowings ---> True Gliding Wings
Thats all just another idea I'm tossing out there of course.

And by the way, as others have mentioned, evolution sometimes will remove a structure and then a few million years down the road bring it back. When I look at the horns along Bronx's back I'm very much reminded of the sails on the backs of the mammal-like reptiles. In fact, maybe the Beasts lost their wings (for some reason) and are now bringing back the sail to compensate for the lower amounts of thermal energy they absorb.
Maybe Bronx's descendents a few million years from now will have a sail along their backs. Of course, there may yet be Beasts in one of the Clans we see yet that could reveal more. Maybe there already is a Beast somewhere that has a sail...?
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 8:39:11 pm EDT from 71.153.48.181

HoE> I thought the difference was more like 2% between humans and chimps... Anywho, I remember what I was meant to say earlier, and it relates to the above: the bipedal gargoyles and the garg beasts. As with humans and chimpanzees, I wouldn't be surprised if there is only a slight difference, akin to the 1-2% that differentiates us. I'm going to refer to Richard Dawkins here and suggest the idea of DNA in general as a dictionary. Two species start off with the same source of "words" (codons,genes), but it is in the application of the words that results in different sentences, ie different phenotypic expressions of the genes. The two percent difference probably gives a species a few more words, and that creates the opportunity for different phenotype sentences, say having less hair or shorter arms. Taken as a whole, you can get chimp or human, gargoyle or garg beast.

As to why the winged bipedal gargoyles have taken on a more human-like intelligence (I'm not saying they aren't as smart as humans, just pointing out we would recognize it as like ours because it's OUR point of reference), I'm thinking it's because they retained the wings. Assumption 1: going with Matt's theory that the gargoyle/garg beast ancestor had a thermal collection sail like we think Dimetrodon had, whenever there was a split between the gargoyle and garg beast lines, the garg beasts found losing the sails to have some advantage (any number of evolutionary adaptations could have done this). The line that kept the sails had the added energy, and with that little extra bit of energy available was able to take steps that would lead to the human-level intelligence they have now. I still think the wings probably came from the sails: the structure is there, just changed. One concession is there evidence in the reptile species of certain features appearing and reappearing over time -- the gene is still there, just one environment may have it be activated where another will have it stay off. So it's possible the garg beasts still have the gene, but no need to activate it.
Asatira
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 7:48:11 pm EDT from 68.117.246.81

RENO - Yes, I was wondering about that as well, since Amazon.com was where I got the information about the release date from.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 7:18:55 pm EDT from 4.244.18.22

The fossil record shows that limbs are much more likely to be lost than gained as a species evolves. So if gargoyle beasts are closely related to upright-walking gargoyles, in the way that chimpanzees are closely related to humans, it's more likely that the common ancestor had six limbs, and two were lost to the gargoyle beasts for whatever reason. The ancestors of whales were land-dwelling mammals that returned to the sea. Their front limbs evolved into flippers, while their hind limbs disappeared entirely, save for vestigial bones in some species.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2006]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 6:01:21 pm EDT from 70.229.218.24

Patrick: <So there's nothing inherently unusual about one species of gargoyles having six limbs while the other species has only four.> It's funny you say that, since the wings probably developed from limbs in the first place. Some gargoyles do have what appear to be very small fingers on their wings. It's either a leftover like the human appendix, or the only reason they've kept them is that they serve as a "clasp" when the gargoyle capes its wings.

Matt: Maybe something just happened along the way that put the spark of sentience in one variety of gargate but not another. I mean, the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is 99 percent identical.

Reno: Ah, I see. And thanks for inadvertantly reminding me to place a preorder for the comic. I've already pre-ordered the Star Wars DVDs that are coming out September 12, but I've still got to preorder the comic.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"All the world's indeed a stage and we are merely players, performers and portrayers. Each another's audience outside the gilded cage." -Rush ("Limelight")
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 5:48:20 pm EDT from 69.174.3.196

Sorry for double posting.

HoE> Forgot to say that I read and responded to your LJ entry just now.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582@hotmail.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 5:00:01 pm EDT from 209.239.132.246

Makhasu> Finally! A release date for the comic! Thanks for sharing. :-)

Patrick> I wouldn't be surprised either. In fact, I expect that they will be.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582@hotmail.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 4:58:56 pm EDT from 209.239.132.246

Matt - <Anyway, I'm fine with you believing God made the gargoyles on the sixth day of creation as long as you don't insist it is taught side-by-side with Evolution in SCIENCE classrooms.> But any theory of origins is a religion. That's my problem with the current teaching. I would rather not teach 'theories' of origin in any science class than not present any alternatives.

BTW, is it safe to assume the lack of news about another gargoyles dvd release is bad news?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 4:22:44 pm EDT from 63.232.250.108

You know someone should really write a book with all this in it cause it's really facinating.

I finally watched my season 2 dvds and I have to say that I really enjoyed gregs insight into each episode before you watched them.
Shara
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 3:11:03 pm EDT from 4.246.208.139

Kevin: Not to mention, as Greg Weisman already said, Gargoyles are Gargates, not *mammals*. So the species wouldn't fall under the class Mammalia. And Monotremata itself is an order, not a subclass. And since Monotremes are a division within the Mammal class, Gargoyles cannot be Monotremes (the rest of our reasons for why they wouldn't be monotromes aside.) And no, Greg Weisman did not coin the term Gargidae, only "Gargate". Gargidae is a word that I and Alex Garg came up with each independantly. And I'm not sure why you are bringing location into it at the Sub-order level, especially not when all gargoyles fall into the same Family. (We seem to have reached a consensus that the beasts and "upright" gargs seperate at the Genus level, after looking at the rest of the animal kingdom and seeing where such divisions lay.) Bringing location into it at that point seems moot since we know the sentient ones are all the same species (let alone same genus, family, and order) but the scottish gargoyles and the english gargoyles look striking different, and they are on the same european island. Some gargoyles seen living as far away as both Japan and Guatemala are very close in build and appearances (if not horn type or other physical surface ornamentation) as the ones in Scotland. The snake-and-heraldic body types for all we know are not divided by continent; it wouldn't surprise me to see snake-bodied gargs in India, parts of Africa, Australia or Greece (given the myths present in those locales) or "heraldic" ones...anywhere, really, including any part of meso-america where they worshipped jaguars and certain species of birds. Anyway, point is they are still the same species all over the world, no matter what they look like.


And to throw in on the thermal thing, I think they were limbs first; everything else in the animal kingdom that has evolved way to collect heat (plates on certain species of dinosaurs, for instance) has done so without evolving that organ/adaptation into an extra set of limbs. If they weren't meant to work as limbs, it seems less likely they would have evolved into them. Though again gargs being a mythic species does put the damper on having any kind of direct evidence to "prove" it one way or another. Sure fun to speculate on though, and I sometimes wonder if it is for that very reason... ; )
Lynati
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 2:39:49 pm EDT from 70.245.206.167

HoE: "In the points" Formula 1 style. Positions 1-8 score championship points, but 8th scores only a single point. So scoring in the points is finishing 7th or higher. It was the Gran Prix of Monaco this weekend. ;)

A note on Gargoyle evolution. I actually thought that limb differentiation (split versus single wings) could be indicative of differing sub-species that over countless eons have blurred together.

SLG: My amazon pre-order still says the 28th. Am I just getting jipped, or what?
Reno
I'm only happy when it rains...
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:35:21 pm EDT from 24.205.105.243

I wouldn't be surprised if Gargoyles Issue #1 is available for sale at SLG's booth at The Gathering.

Snakes have no limbs but are closely related to lizards. A few species of lizards also have no limbs, though most species have four. So there's nothing inherently unusual about one species of gargoyles having six limbs while the other species has only four.

2 days left to pre-register under the extended deadline.
18 days left until The Gathering 2006 in Valencia, California!
Patrick
"Your taillight's out and you've got no... knees." - Eddie Izzard
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:55:41 pm EDT from 24.106.128.24

Matt> your theory about the wings being primarily a modification of thermal collection organ, aka sail, has a lot going for it. I'm not going to dispute it. And features like that could easily develop secondary uses, namely flying/gliding wings. I believe the current theory about lungs evolving from some fish-like ancestors' air bladder works the same way. From the evidence and theories put forth, I'm leaning towards Gargoyles descending from some branching of the mammal-like reptiles, if only because they lactate. Not sure WHEN it became a determining feature, but it does pose an intriguing case of convergent evolution with monotremes. I think it was mammal-like reptile ancestor because you have 1. hair (generally) and 2. lactation. And to be fair, live birth is sort of the oddball form of reproduction if you compare it to a large part of the animal kingdom.

I was going to say more, but I forget. (that added nothing to the conversation)
Asatira
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:50:55 am EDT from 24.214.68.215

Thanks Phil. I've put a lot of thought into it, and when you spend half your free time reading biology books and the other half watching Gargoyles or reading Ask Greg, you start to get ideas.
Anyway, I'm fine with you believing God made the gargoyles on the sixth day of creation as long as you don't insist it is taught side-by-side with Evolution in SCIENCE classrooms. : )
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:12:36 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Wow! Lots of interesting information here. I love this stuff.

matt, I'm especially impressed with your speculation on gargoyle evolution. I would never have made a connection between wings, stone hibernation, and absorption of thermal energy, but it all makes sense. When you spell it out the way you have, its surprisingly intuitive. Very, very impressive.

Despite all that, however, I have to reject your line of thinking. I am of the firm belief that gargoyles were created by God on the sixth day of creation. ;)
Phil - [p1anderson@go.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 10:05:09 am EDT from 69.129.121.95

Kevin> Just because sapiens is part of the species name does not mean they would have to be descended from primates. Capuchin monkeys were not descended from Capuchin Monks. Frogs with the species name darwini did not evolve from Darwin. An elephant shrew is not descended (or even that closely related) to either an elephant or a shrew. A name is just a name. It doesn't denote a biological relationship, only the entire classification does that.
And putting Gargates as a subclass of Monotremes is not likely. Monotremes don't have breast as was mentioned last week. The only things Gargates and Monotremes have in common is egg-laying and warm-bloodedness, and that isn't enough to show a close relationship. If it was, we might consider birds to be a subclass of Monotremes.

JJGregarius> Do we know that Gargates have an internal ear? Perhaps they don't. Even if they do, however, this could be an example of convergent evolution. Part of the reason mammal-like reptiles were called that was the fact that their skulls, including the jaw bones that would become the inner ear bones, were in transition from a reptile-like skull to a mammal-like skull. Perhaps both Gargates and Mammals developed the inner ear independently or perhaps their common ancestor had already developed or partially developed the ear.
As for mammary glands, again, some of the mammal-like reptiles could've been nursing young something like a Monotreme would, by secreting a nutritive fluid from specialized sweat glands and in both mammals and Gargates this evolved into breast feeding. The breast themselves in the position they are in could be a coincidence, convergent evolution, or even an effect of the Chameleon Mutation Gene Greg has mentioned a few times.
I understand what you are saying about the addition of extra limbs, but I think it is more likely wings would develop from spines on the back then it is that a mutation created a second set of arms and these went on to develop into wings.
I agree with you on your breakdown of evolution/mutation. I think my theory (with a bit of tweaking perhaps) follows this process.

HofEyes> The only thing I can think of right now is that the addition of wings (and the ability to use them) required more sophisticated brains. That is a bit of a stretch though, someone else might have a better idea there.
Matt - [St. Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 9:47:08 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Nope. According to SLG, Gargoyles #1 comes out on the 14th of June.

http://www.slavelabor.com/prod_schedule.html
Makhasu - [aknellthatsummonsthee@yahoo.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 8:20:29 am EDT from 66.74.220.146

MAKHASU - I thought that it would be a little longer than that until the comic came out; according to what I'd read, it was to be released on or around June 28.
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 7:35:44 am EDT from 4.244.210.7

Reno: In the points?

Matt: One of the things I'm unclear on is why only the gargates that kept their wings would go on to develop a higher degree of intelligence. Not that gargoyle beasts aren't intelligent, but I think you know what I mean.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75@gmail.com]
"Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, I sentence you to be exposed before your peers! Tear down the wall!"
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 6:49:34 am EDT from 69.174.3.196

9 days 'til Gargoyles issue #1!

All this discussion and theorizing of Gargoyles biology is fascinating. These posts make for great reading, especially for a fanfic writer like me. ^_^
Makhasu - [aknellthatsummonsthee@yahoo.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 6:40:41 am EDT from 66.74.220.146

JJ I did see the series, like 8 years ago. I'm re-watching it.

I do not believe that has that much to do with the speculation of the scientific classification of Gargoyles, which is really what I was addressing.
Kevin Conner - [DalbozOfGurth@aol.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 5:01:36 am EDT from 172.190.208.68

Kevin Conner>> You haven't seen the entire series. You've just read some spoilers the last few days. ;-)

Matt>>
OK. How do you figure internal ears and mammary glands into you system?

Also, I think extra limbs don't evolve often simply because it is hard to fit extra functional limbs into our developmental sequence. If I'm not mistaken, mutants with extra limbs usually have them in less-than-useful positions, such as jammed into a pre-existing joint.

Evolution does *not* maximize performance, no matter how much Charles Darwin wished that were so. Just because a hypothetical alteration such as additional useful limbs doesn't occur does not mean that it must be bad.

When considering a mutation, I propose that you think:
A "Is this genetically probable?" (Granted you may not know this much of the time!)
B "Would this make the individual less likely to reproduce?" (In which case the mutation shouldn't "hold")
C "Would this make *other* individuals comparatively less likely to reproduce"

A yes to A, a no to B and some agent of speciation (say, geographic separation? varying sexual preference?) are all you really need. If any thing, a yes to C would serve to decrease genetic variety; think about it.
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 4:47:04 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

"but as far as we know only two surviving Gargate species, Gargoyles and Gargoyle Beasts."

Which brings up a question I have always had, but one which I do not think Greg would accept since it may be looked at as a "hidden suggestion."

Has Greg described/mentioned gargoyle species from other parts of the world at all? Because as far as I can tell in the series he made no mention of any branch of the gargoyle tree from Africa, Asia, Western Europe, or even South America.

All areas which have had gargoyle/water spout structures in known history.

From my understanding, most recognize the first step of scientific classification is from how young is raised and overall biology. Like the platypus, the gargoyles breast feed and are warm blooded. They would be mammalia.

This is one time where I believe Greg should take a suggestion from a reader/watcher-- gargoyle classification and the gargoyle family tree. Goliath is the last of his clan, but wasn't he searching for other gargoyles at some point? There are Golem myths, the Emperor's Army in China, the guardian sphinx (not the riddler), the temple gargoyles/water fountains of ancient rome/greece which would funnel water from the roof into the basin in the center of the tunnel. So many possibilities. It would be nice to see him address a family tree of sorts in the comic book.

And some of Lynati and Demonshryke's definitions look like a massive step in the right direction.

Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum : Vertebrata
Superclass: (can't double check)
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Monotremes
*Order: Gargates <-- this is what GW said right?
*Sub-Order: Goliath would likely be something with the "Europa-" prefix or species suffix I assume.
*Family: Gargidae <-- this is what GW said right?
*Sub Family: Gargidae <-- this is what GW said right?
*Genus :
*Species :

Ok now this is where I bring up several questions concerning the placement of certain terms:

Goliath would likely be something with the "Europa-" prefix or species suffix I assume. Gargidae, Gargidae
Seems to be out of place in the original post and may actually fit better if re-placed between family, genus and species.

Taking the prefix of Family Gargidae, you wind up with Gargo (i becomes a o) for Genus

Thus you wind up with:

Genus: Gargo
Species: Gargo

Now in reading the section of species here on the web, the species portion tends to have to classifications following the Genus.

We can and should all agree on these terms being viable candidates:

Nocturnus
and
Lapis (for stone)

Now I'm shootin for Lapis but Nocturnus is also appropriate. Nothing else is as major as these two since they are scientific observations which could easily have been made back in the time of Rome.

Thermo/Lumo-- Gargoyles are supposed to be older than humanity, and frankly, Roman scientists/philosophers would've named them a long time before determining how Gargoyles gain energy in the day.

Sapiens is a definitive species marker for those within the primate family.

Now, the only way to justify Sapiens in the name is one of two things:

Humanity evolved from Gargoyles (frankly this would explain a lot), or if Gargoyles evolved branced off from the same primate family which would later parent human evolution.

I don't see Greg authorizing either of these hypotheticals and therefore I do not see sapiens anywhere in the species name.

So we're left with Gargo-(Nocturnus/Lapis) as the main species distinction and followed by the biological splits within the Gargo genus. By splits I mean:
The animal like gargoyles
The fully sentient gargoyles

ferus - wild, untamed, uncultivated.
cultus - basically care, training, education, refinement, civilization, veneration, adoration, worship, etc...

Gargo-nocturnus cultus
Gargo-nocturnus ferus
or
Gargo-lapis cultus
Gargo-lapis ferus
Kevin Conner - [DalbozOfGurth@aol.com]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 4:22:24 am EDT from 172.190.208.68

I have a hard time thinking of the Gargates as a Mammalian group. Just because they are warm-blooded does not mean they are mammals, birds are warm blooded and most likely some dinosaurs were too. The mammal-like reptiles were in transition between cold and warm blooded and evolved some fascinating organ structures to deal with temperature regulation. Some developed a faster and more efficient metabolism, these led to the mammals. Some others, however, developed large sails on their backs that they could use to warm or cool their blood and thus help regulate body temperature.

I theorize that both the wings of gargoyles and the stone sleep evolved from these structures. In the Permian period, the Earth's climate had a major swing from a cool world with huge glaciers to a steamy, hot, suffocating world. This, in part, led to the greatest mass extinction in the history of life on Earth where 95% of all species died out. For the record, volcanoes, meteors, ocean currents and continental arrangement all played a part in the extinction as well. Pretty much everything went wrong all at once, and life suffered.

Some organisms, however, evolved and adapted and managed to survive. I think the earliest Gargates were some of these organisms. I surmise that the organisms changed their behavior and body plans to deal with the harsh climate. First, they became nocturnal, limiting all body movement during the excessively hot Permian days. Over time they saved energy by entering a brief hibernation-like trance during each day. For further protection from the sun and the elements and perhaps predators, they evolved a skin reaction that hardened their skin at dawn as a sort of armor which they shed in the evening. This evolved into the stone-like skin gargoyles sport during the day in modern times.

At the same time this stone skin hibernation was evolving the early Gargates were also advancing in their metabolic, body temp. regulatory and energy absorption abilities. They developed true warm-bloodedness to keep them warm at night, and as Sevarius pointed out, this takes a lot of energy. So they used something that was widely available in the late Permian. Heat.

Greg W. has said that the gargoyles absorb THERMAL energy. Not solar energy, not light energy. They are not absorbing light as a plant does. They are taking in heat from the sun and the environment. To warm their body and thus increase their thermal energy intake, their large sails on their backs spread out a bit, increasing surface area. They needed to remain light enough to get around though, so most of the surface area ended up being bones extended from their backs with skin strecthed across. These structures, of course, ended up evolving into another useful body part: wings. This theory explains a couple of things. First off, it could help explain why gargoyles seem to stretch open their wings at dawn. We rarely see a gargoyle turn to stone with his/her wings closed up. They often will open them just as the sun is rising. If I'm right, they are doing this in part to increase the surface area the sun will hit so they can collect more thermal energy. My theory also helps explain why gargoyles have wings at all. There has to be a very good reason why an animal would evolve a whole new set of limbs. If having lots of limbs was such a great thing without any drawbacks then more animals would have lots of limbs. Gargates developed their wings from the sails on the backs of a species of mammal-like reptiles for energy collection purposes. Later evolution used the structures to allow gliding. Later on some of the Gargates lost their wings in favor of a smaller and more terrestrial body plan. These would become the Beasts.

Hair on the Gargates could've already been present in the mammal-like reptiles, so mammal and gargate hair could have a common source. Or perhaps hair evolved seperately in the Gargates as further thermal isolation when they began their nocturnal lifestyle.

So, thats my theory. Interested to see what you guys think. The Gargates closest living relatives would still be the Mammals, but Gargates wouldn't be descended from them. They'd be distant cousin groups. Anyway, thats what I'm thinking.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 2:15:48 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

Hey, these scientific discussions would be perfect for the Gathering ... still room to sign up for the fan panels! Let me know! :)
Christine - [<--- pre-order the Grimorum Anthology here!]
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 2:05:01 am EDT from 70.56.94.10

TE--

Drat.

**Tucks Chameleongirl under her arm and lurks out again**
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera (at) gmail.com]
I do not suffer fools, gladly or otherwise.
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:39:05 am EDT from 24.126.11.109

TENTH!!!

Just made it...
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"They mostly come at night.... mostly..." -Newt, 'Aliens'
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:37:58 am EDT from 71.153.48.181

9? *didn't bother to count properly*
Chameleongirl
Chameleon may changer her spots, but she refuses to do plaid.
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:37:31 am EDT from 202.87.162.31

8th perhaps? How exciting. I got a digit.

Reminder to everyone to check out Greg's season 2 premiere of W.I.T.C.H. tomorrow!

See you at the con! :D
Kerberos
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:34:21 am EDT from 4.232.9.218

Seventh, and in the points!
Reno
There have been other times when a danger upon the world have required the services of certain, singular individuals...
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:27:28 am EDT from 24.205.105.243

Sixth.
So what's the morning line on what's-his-name making an appearance this week? I started jumping over his posts about 2 paragraphs into his first one.
Who the heck is Billy Shakes? A lounge singer in Vegas?

Gotta love people who just cut-and-paste your stuff to their website without asking or crediting.
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury
"Hey, if they lugged Bronx along, the situation's got to be serious."
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:18:46 am EDT from 4.230.255.227

HoE><<Was it a grue? They enjoy dark places.>>

I dunno. Mighta been a Wumpus.
V
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 1:11:04 am EDT from 205.250.215.79

Fourth.
Humanity>> I think I can sum up my thoughts with one sentence: in spite of genetics and the evolutionary record, I consider gargoyles to be far closer to humans in essence than chimpanzees are.

Etymology of "gargoyle" (living creature sense)
How about gorlois (Atlantean)
-> ???gorlois/garlois/garois??? (rare Old French)
-> gargouille, gargoule, out of auditory confusion with Old French gargouille/gargoule (statuary sense).

Seems simple enough, yesno?
JJ Gregarius
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:32:42 am EDT from 206.57.93.104

Third!
Leo
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:02:19 am EDT from 68.107.154.71

Damn, you're quick.

2nd! XD
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:00:47 am EDT from 69.157.14.20

FIRST!!!
The Sadistic Cow
The one thing dead people are good at is floating in the water and they're wasting money by buyin' 'em cushions! - Richard Jeni
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:00:23 am EDT from 69.157.14.20

1st again
Warcrafter - [grafixfangamer1@sbcglobal.net]
My friend got a python with a 300 chrisler kit on it and whenever he stops at a red light, the rims stay still but the car starts moving................oh, and one more thing.....DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted @ Mon, Jun 5, 2006 12:00:17 am EDT from 69.231.215.9