Comment Room Archive : Gargoyles : Station Eight

Watching the Academy Awards.

I liked the Best Picture montage.

Great to see some of my favorites there.

It Happened One Night
All About Eve
Casablanca
On the Waterfront
Godfather
Godfather II
Annie Hall
Gandhi
Shakespeare In Love
American Beauty
Return of the King
The Departed

Love those.

But it's a sad reminder that Goodfellas lost the award to fucking Dances With Wolves.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 10:36:34 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

I saw it at a reptile show. Some guy had like three of them
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 10:26:45 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

siren> do you have any links to any pictures of those? I'm an avid herp lover and would love to see something like that. My pine snake isn't the most colorful of herps...
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 9:22:51 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Chris, no, I was talking about seeing blue Nile Monitors. I mean, electric blue and black. That doesn't come naturally in the species.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 7:02:08 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

The gargoyles have a few traits that suggest "super-hero" (such as fighting crime in a modern-day U.S. city), but that's as far as I'd go. They certainly lack one of the most common super-hero traits: the double identity. (On the other hand, a lot of their enemies have that quality: Demona, the Canmores, and Owen/Puck among them.)
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 6:52:45 pm EST from 4.244.210.251

Rebel> I like your idea about gargoyle coloration biology a lot. I don't know if it is as simple as mixing primary colors, but I think you are on the right track. Anyway, it's a better idea than I've ever been able to come up with.

Ethan> What "magical component" are you referring to? Gargoyles are completely natural creatures. The only magical component about them that I can think of is the effects of the Humility Spell, which could affect a couple details of their biology, but not their coloring.

Katana & Culture> When Goliath, Angela and Bronx were in Ishimura, they faced inwards. I think Katana will face outwards as the rest of the Manhattan Clan does. It could be as simple a matter as "when in Rome..." But keep in mind why the Ishimura Clan faced inwards. Kai said that it is a a show of trust with their human protectors. They don't need to look outward from where danger may come. I think that all plays a part in why the Manhattan Clan faces outward. They don't live in harmony with the human community. Even the occupants of their Castle are uneasy allies at best. And the rest of the city, those outside the walls from where danger may come, are on the whole less friendly to the Clan.

Heroes> The gargoyles are heroes, but whether they are superheroes is such a subjective question. In any case, what's in a name? The gargoyles themselves certainly wouldn't be that interested in defining which they are. They are what they are. Must you humans name everything?
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 3:36:50 pm EST from 69.44.6.103

we do not hold superman to the rules of earth nature because he has super abilities beyond that of this planet. Not a whole lot of discussion on the *physics* of how he is what he is. Superman is a 'just so' story. Nor do we put a whole lot of emphasis into the how's of Oberon's children because they are 'beings of pure magic' existing outside of our mere mortal abilities to comprehend them. Gargoyles, on the other hand, (unless I am mistaken) abide by the laws of physics (We cannot fly, only glide)

I'm not looking at the 'dictionary.com' definition of the word superhero, but trying to apply logic to the term itself. 'Super' beings are those that have powers and abilities that we can't rationalize within the laws of normal physics and nature -Superman, Spiderman, Oberon's children. They are Super Heroes when they are doing good deeds- I wouldn't consider most of Oberon's children to be 'heroes'- nor really villains either, just super beings.

Heroes on the other hand (lacking the word 'super') would be any individual that does good deeds and can be defined within the laws of nature and physics- Batman, Dare Devil (I don't think he actually has and 'powers' but I could be wrong) police officers, firefighters, the Gargoyles. Sure the Gargoyles are stronger than humans, but they aren't humans and ARE subject to earth's laws of nature and physics- by being from this planet. They are heroes that possess no 'super' powers- which makes them incredible characters. Personally, I find Superman boring.

I hope that clears up my position.
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 2:25:41 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Chris - <Didn't mean to preach, just wanted to ask the question: are they SUPER heroes or heroes?> Is Superman a super-hero? Batman? All of Superman's powers he was born with. Any other member of his race would have the same powers. On the other extreme, Batman has no special abilities aside from detective skills and enormous wealth. In my mind, I would classify Batman has more of a hero than Superman because of Spiderman's saying: With great power comes great responsibility. With Superman's power, he has a huge amount of responsibility whereas Batman doesn't have any special powers but does a lot. When it comes to the question of are gargoyles super heroes, I am not sure of my answer. I agree they are heroes, but if any of them are heroes, then aren't those some ones super heroes? From dictionary.com, a superhero is 1)a hero, esp. in children's comic books and television cartoons, possessing extraordinary, often magical powers; 2)A figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime. By definition #1, I'm not sure that Superman is really a superhero because his powers aren't extra-ordinary, when you consider that any member of his race would have those same powers. By that same reasoning, gargoyles can't be super-heroes either.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 1:43:24 pm EST from 98.20.246.23

Posting so much-sorry sorry sorry

"I certainly would categorize them as SUPER heroes. Dingo is more of a superhero now than them, because the MATRIX GIVES HIM POWERS he otherwise wouldn't naturally have. The gargoyles are NATURAL creatures. They can get injured and killed. They may be tougher to kill than a human, but so is an elephant and they DON'T HAVE SUPER POWERS either."

~then aren't they just *heroes* then?
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:50:28 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

sorry for the double post

Siren> On clownfish- orange, red and yellow are colors within the same general hue- no blue, purple, or green. Monitor lizards- there are many *different species* of monitor lizards from all over the place. The different color comes from being different species- and red would work in deserts that have the ruddy hue.
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:46:25 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

I certainly would categorize them as super heroes. Dingo is more of a superhero now than them, because the Matrix gives him powers he otherwise wouldn't naturally have. The gargoyles are natural creatures. They can get injured and killed. They may be tougher to kill than a human, but so is an elephant and they don't have super powers either. They can heal wounds with stone sleep, but even that has limitations and it can't cure a gargoyle from death. So long as the gargoyle is still breathing when stone sleep comes, they will live. They can lost limbs, be blinded, bleed, and killed with mortal weapons. They don't have super strength, they just have gargoyle strength.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:45:45 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

bluewyvern> but again, gargates are a class AND a species. No singular SPECIES exhibits such an array of colors. Sure, there are neon green geckos, but no purple geckos, the purple martin in an incredibly deep royal purple/blue, but there are no purple martins that are neon green.

Like I said earlier, I chalk this fact up to my suspended disbelief.

If we spend too much time saying 'but they're GARGOYLES!' they can be X, Y, Z, Q traits and abilities and this and that and the other thing, we lose out on the discussion that grounds them in reality. Like trying to rationalize how Superman had all his powers.

We need to decide if they are SUPER heroes, and thus outside of any discussion that would not boil down to 'just so stories,' or simply HEROES (like Batman- who is completely mortal and complies with the laws of physics)

I like to consider them as heroes, and thus abide by natural laws.

Didn't mean to preach, just wanted to ask the question: are they SUPER heroes or heroes?
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:41:09 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Demonstryke> Actually, clownfish can be orange, red or yellow, with either black or white stripes, or both colored stripes. Another example is reptiles. I have seen black, green, yellow, red, blue, albino, and white monitor lizards. Even some monitors with no patterns and some with different patterns than what is norm. Like dogs/cats, selective breeding mostly. But the genes are still there in the first place, so in the wild, such lizards could be born, but likely wouldn't make it far past the egg. A red monitor lizards won't blend in well to green vegetation. And either starve or be eaten.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:35:38 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

Ethan> There is no "magical" component to the gargoyles except for the "Humility Spell" that turns their clothes to stone -- apart from that, they are entirely naturally evolved creatures of the earth. Even more natural, perhaps, than humans, given that they existed first and they still maintain a deeper innate connection to the earth and its rhythms than humans.

And there may be no multi-chromatic mammals in nature, but, well, gargoyles aren't mammals -- they're gargates! And gargates have a wide range of possible coloration, like birds and (more pertinently) reptiles and amphibians.
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 10:32:03 am EST from 69.112.108.43

Bob> I think Katana's way of stone sleep depends on whether Gargoyles trusted humans during Feudal Japan. Given that facing inward is a sign of trust.
Antiyonder
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 9:44:54 am EST from 72.87.13.156

bob >

I think she'd probably adopt the Manhattan clan's way pretty quickly. After all, in "Bushido", Angela and Goliath found the Ishimura clan's tradition pretty strange, but they were quick to go along with it.

I think maybe gargoyles (or at least, SOME gargoyles) are a lot less ethnocentric than humans.
Rebel
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 9:40:23 am EST from 24.227.200.138

This is back on Katanna, i was wondering when she comes to Manhattan if she would face inward towards what she protects before turning to stone like she is customed to or of she would feel "pressured" to face outward like the rest of the clan. It would be pretty werid to see a bunch of gargoyles facing out with one facing in.
bob
no, are ya mad these are your childern... no one threatens my eggs.- princess Katherine- "Avalon Part 2"
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 9:21:01 am EST from 66.202.98.53

There's also the magical component of the gargoyles to consider as well. Granted I hate just using the excuse "it's magic" without a logical chain of events but it is something to consider.
Ethan Gilchrist - [ethangilchrist at gmail dot com]
"I wouldn't wanna live in a world without grudges." --Jack Terricloth of the World Inferno Friendship Society
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 9:06:50 am EST from 68.215.185.141

Siren> Good point, but you are talking about a variety of different species. There are orange fish and blue fish, but clownfish are only orange and white. Off the tops of my head, I can't think of a single species that has a variety of colorations comparable to what we see in gargoyles. Dogs and cats may be one of the better examples of color diversity within a species and even there, the range is limited. Gargoyles being all on species but having such a range of skin and hair colors is probabl just a part of them having extremely diverse appearances while still being able to interbreed.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 8:56:37 am EST from 209.6.248.33

The fact gargoyles seem to come in a rainbow of colors is completely natural. Look at birds, fish, and reptiles for instance. I've seen electric blue lizards, bright yellow fish, and purple and red birds. And yet all those species have many animals that are dull earthy tones, like browns and grays.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Sun, Feb 24, 2008 12:38:12 am EST from 65.33.45.29

sorry for the double (again).

Just wanted to make sure that it's clear that I DO NOT wish that there were no blue, purple, or green gargoyles. I reread my middle paragraph and it sorta sounded that way. I LOVE all the color variations, even if they do make the "science" aspect of gargoyles a little harder to figure out.
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 11:17:31 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Yeah, I know it's not quite perfect. I think that, to come up with an accurate hypothetical model of gargoyle coloration genetics, we'd have to look at species like dogs/wolves, horses, or guppies, where a single species can exhibit a huge array of colors, and then tweak it a little to take into account the fact that gargoyles have such odd colors like blue, green and purple.

If there were only variations of red, brown, black, yellow, gold, white, orange, and grey gargoyles, then it'd be easy enough to figure out their genetics--it'd probably be pretty similar to dogs and horses. But gargoyles throw in blue as well, so that kinda changes things. We wouldn't have to worry about purple, green, or lavender gargoyles (or many of the other shades) because they could all be offshoots of blue, mixing with genes for other colors.

If I remember correctly, either horses or dogs have only two colors coded for in their genes, red and black. The variations of those account for all the colors I mentioned at the top of my previous paragraph (not counting spotted, brindle, or dappled animals...that's another matter entirely and I don't think it applies to gargoyles).
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 11:15:17 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

The creation of organic pigments doesn't really work the same as say, mixing paint colors. Your theory on the dominance, co-dominance, and recession of the 'shade' hues is pretty accurate though. Albinism and melanism(all black) overrule whatever color the organism 'should' be.

The coloration of the gargoyles is something I chalked up to the suspension of disbelief. Those are not colors naturally found in mammal/synapsid types. Mammals are generally pretty boring in color- most colorful mammal I can think of is a tiger, and even that could be considered in a red/brown range. Can't think of any green/blue/purple mammals.

Though I do have a theory on *why* gargoyles vary in such colors- they probably can't see them! Being nocturnal, they must have excellent night vision. Dark/light vision competes with color vision. Our dark vision is pretty poor because we have such strong color vision (lots of 'cones' in the eyes). Those who have poor color vision- or complete color blindness (no cones, only 'rods') have great dark vision! There are entire aboriginal tribes that through bottleneck evolution are colorblind, and have adapted by behaving nocturnally.

Any other biologists have any thoughts?
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 9:59:13 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

sorry for the double. looks like I made a typo:

"To give a really simple example, a gargoyle with genes that activate both the *yellow* and blue colors, but don't activate the red color, would be a shade of green"

That should say yellow, not red. If I've made any other mistakes you can probably figure them out for yourselves.
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 9:22:05 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Hey, speaking of Gargoyle colors, I had an idea about the genetics of their skin coloring.

In my hypothesis, there are basically there are four different "sets" of genes that account for four different things. One set that controls the "amount" of each of three colors: red, blue, and yellow. And another set that determines shade...in other words, precisely where between white and black said gargoyle's skin color would fall.

To give a really simple example, a gargoyle with genes that activate both the red and blue colors, but don't activate the red color, would be a shade of green. Depending on what his shade genes are, this determines whether it is a light or dark shade (if his/her "shade" genes are fully one way or the other, that would yield a pure white or pure black gargoyle, regardless of the other three sets of color genes). A gargoyle that has roughly equal gene expression for red, blue, and yellow, and has an approximately "medium" value for shade, would be brown. Equal amounts of red and blue but very little yellow would yield a purple goyle, and the shade genes would determine whether the skin ended up being lavender, purple, or violet. Large amounts of blue, with just a dash of yellow and no red would yield an aquamarine gargoyle, like Broadway, providing the shade genes were just right.

Anyway, you get the idea. Biology people: Is this plausible?
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 9:20:11 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Whatever the hatchlings look like, I'm sure Brooklyn will be happy so long as they have six limbs and eight fingers.

125 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"Rednecks think 'mutual funds' means *everyone* is having a good time," - Jeff Foxworthy
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 7:20:00 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

TransFormers Animated> Dorn is a possibility, but I don't know that anyone's deliberately going through the "Gargoyles" cast list. These guys are just really good voice actors. Though of course, ol' Soundwave's voice is so heavily manipulated that it's tough to recognize the talented Mr Bennett.

Also, it's a Bulkhead feature episode, so there's plenty of Broadway-sounding goodness to boot.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 5:22:10 pm EST from 209.6.248.33

Whew...been a while since I've been around here.

Those watching 'Transformers: Animated' may have noticed that today's new episode, "Sound and Fury", featured a fourth VA from 'Gargoyles' among its cast. Kath Soucie (Princess Katherine, among others) provided the voice for guest villain Professor Princess. Series regular Jeff Bennett, meanwhile, provided the voice for new Decepticon Soundwave.

So who wants to lay down odds that Michael Dorn'll appear at some point?
Echowarrior - [WARendfeld at aol dot com]
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 4:59:23 pm EST from 161.32.228.101

Aldrius: I remember Puck in "Future Tense" when he tried to get the Phoenix Gate from Goliath, and basically the entire nightmare was just to convince Goliath to voluntarily give it. Puck couldn't just take it, Goliath had to be willing to do so (which he wasn't).

And then I think about the Weird Sisters, who through a lot of manipulation, had to get Demona and Macbeth to the point where they Wanted-more-so-NEEDED a Child of Oberon to help them out. Essentially the were just nudging them closer and closer, not breaking any particular rule (becasue they were in disguises) until Macbeth comes to Demona with "You! You are the answer!" and for Demona to finally respond "And what about my Clan? How do I know you'll keep your word?"

Apparently that's enough to create a waiver in the "Don't interfere with the mortals" clause. But I imagine there's probably more to it than that.
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 12:31:03 pm EST from 157.242.221.133

Katana... I kinda hope she shares her colouring with Yama, only a little lighter. Just because I kinda see that contrasting really well with Brooklyn's skin colour. Moreso than green or blue or purple (though, come to think of it, any REALLY light colour will contrast well, of course all the Ishimura gargoyles have lighter skin as a rule).

Here's another question for you all. I still don't really get the 'bend the law without breaking it' thing with the Weird Sisters. I mean, I sort of get it, but I wanna clarify. So if the Weird Sisters do anything that any perfectly normal human being can do, in the appearance of a perfectly normal human (such as relaying information to Demona and MacBeth which in turn causes what they want as a result (Demona meeting MacBeth, MacBeth requiring Demona's aid to stand up to Duncan). And at the same time, they can strengthen what already exists (such as the bond between MacBeth and Demona) But then, how does Puck fit in? Or any of the other children of Oberon? Is it that they can use their magic to interfere in human affairs if put in danger. (Such as when Xanatos captured Coyote, or Demona Puck). Or is it something as simple as they can use magic as long as mortals remain oblivious to it without seeking it out for themselves... but even that has holes... yeah... my head hurts. Which is why I ask to clarify!
Aldrius
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 8:32:00 am EST from 64.56.248.39

Blaise> If I mailed you one of those cardy-board quicky cameras, and I paid you to send it back, could you do it for me?

I am doing a project on the Movie wings for school and that picture would help...

if you'd do that, that would be great... eamil me.

wlukinuk AT telus dot net
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 12:43:14 am EST from 75.156.180.163

****One of the chairs near the fire begins to move of its own accord. The cushions move in a way similar to a mouth as Blaise's voice booms forth from the chair.**** Just a quickie.

BATTLE BEAST> Sad to say I do not have a digital camera...or a regular film camera...or a polaroid...or a camera phone...heck, I just don't own a camera. Sorry, man--I'd help if I could.

KATANA> For some reason I always saw her as a deep blue with black hair (kind of like Bluewyvern, but I haven't gone into as much detail on the wings and such). The curiosity over what she looks like is just one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to her appearance. Heck, I've been looking forward to it for the past 11 years (ever since I found out that Brooklyn would FINALLY get some lovin').

Until next time, farwell. ****The Blaise/chair settles down a bit...until it sneezes, blowing itself up as a result.****
Blaise
"Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life."--Terry Pratchett's "Jingo"
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 12:35:00 am EST from 4.232.0.152

bluewyvern >

Well, I think it'd be kinda like what happened with Demona and Goliath. Angela inherited the basic body shape and everything from Demona, but Goliath's coloring, so she still looks like both.

That's sorta what I'm talking about. Tachi could basically have Katana's body shape and everything, just Brooklyn's coloring (and perhaps also Brooklyn's horns, unless Katana has horns that are more awesome than his). She could inherit Katana's wing design, Katana's face, the number of foot digits Katana has (since some of the asian gargoyles seem to have varying numbers of digits instead of just the standard numbers), any fun little spikes Katana has anywhere, anything she might have at the end of her tail (like that little lobe Othello has) etc. I think she could still look a lot like both Katana and Brooklyn even if she inherited Brooklyn's coloring. It wouldn't just be a female version of Brooklyn.

Also, I'm thinking Nashville probably WON'T inherit Brooklyn's coloring. Somehow, I have a feeling he's going to inherit a body similar to Brooklyn's (beak included), but with Katana's coloring and perhaps a few of her other features for embellishments. I would be utterly shocked if Nashville DIDN'T have a beak, but then again, Greg surprises us a lot, so who knows? Maybe Tachi will have a beak and Nashville won't.
Rebel
posted @ Sat, Feb 23, 2008 12:34:38 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Correction -- make that *15* and 5, human years. I know basic hatching-cycle math. *blush*

Rebel> I don't think I'd want to see a child that was basically just a female version of Brooklyn. I'd want something -- color, features, hair, something -- to be different. That's the joy of the great gargoyle mix-and-match game...you're right, it is pointless but lots of fun. ;)
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 11:21:52 pm EST from 69.112.108.43

Tachi: Even though I REALLY want to see a beaked female, I'm conflicted as to whether or not I hope Tachi has a beak.

The main reason is because I would really like to see a "standard" looking female with Brooklyn's coloring, awesome white mane, and horns in the canon. I saw this fanart forever ago that was a picture of what an imaginary child of Demona and Brooklyn would look like. The body and face mostly looked like the typical human-looking female gargoyles that we usually see, but had Brooklyn's coloring and hair. She was AWESOME. I'm really hoping that either Tachi looks like this, OR that they have a third child who is female who looks this way.

One of them could have a beak, and one of them could look like what I've described above, and I'd have both those desires satisfied.

I'd still want to see a female with Lex's wing-type, but that could still happen later on. Or, if Katana has webbed wings like Samuel mentioned, then one of Brook's and Katana's daughters could have web wings but still have either a beak or Brook's skin, hair, and horns (now THAT would be interesting).

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I guess it's pretty pointless to share our hopes for what future characters might look like, but it sure is fun.
Rebel
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 9:31:37 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Katana: Maybe boring, but my image has her deep blue, with black hair, curving horns, and Desdemona-style split wings. (I'd love to see more of that wing type). I drew a "Timedancing family" portrait way back, as I imagined them on their return through the Gate, but that was before we had a lot of info -- I drew both the kids as hatched, about 10 and 5 in human years, and made Tachi the elder, and male. I'm still pretty fond of it even though it's now wrong in a lot of ways.

As for the kids, I gave Nashville Katana's wings and Brooklyn's coloring, and I gave Tachi a beak (slightly more rounded than Brooklyn's) with Brooklyn's wings and Katana's coloring. I hope Tachi does have a beak, and she can finally satisfy everyone's desire to see beaked females...

PS3: I'm still ridiculously pleased by how I got a free PS3 from one of those "self-serve" free stuff sites (Shop Freepay) -- it's like those "free iPod!" pyramid schemes where you have to complete an offer and then get a bunch of people to sign up to get your free item, but with the "shop" model, you just complete a BUNCH of offers yourself, however many you need for the item you want (they have stuff ranging from books and games to laptop computers). I went for the PS3, one of the biggest big-ticket items, and I had to complete about eight offers. A lot of hoops to jump through, but I managed to keep on top and cancel everything I didn't want, and the only actual cost I incurred was buying a case of wine for $80, which I wanted to keep anyway. So I got an $80 case of wine plus a free PS3 -- and, as I said, I was ridiculously pleased with myself.

I did it just when the system was breaking down, and getting harder and harder to beat. It's a lot harder to cancel and get credit for offers, and you pretty much can't get anything now without applying for a car loan or something ridiculous. I would have liked to get a DS, but oh, well.

So the fact that Blu-ray won is a nice little perk for me, though I wasn't in it for the DVDs. I don't even have any PS3 games for it yet -- I wanted it mostly so I could play Katamari Damacy!
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 8:24:02 pm EST from 69.112.108.43

Sorry for the double post...

I made a big posting on a gay website promoting Gargoyles and the comic. I linked to Ed's comic webpage and particularly mentioned the shows themes of tolerance and love overcoming physical differences. I also mentioned Lexington being gay. Anyway, I get lots of responses about "Hey, I rememeber that show, it was cool" and stuff, but today a guy emailed me and said:

"that show was and IS the shit, i will definately check out the comic site and i watch it early mornings on jetix all the time, and i always knew lexington was gay, thats why he was my favorite xD"

Anyway, I thought it was cool, so I'd share. It just goes to show that we don't need to just focus on getting the word out to old fans and fans of related shows, but just anyone. If you are part of a online fan club, a sporting league, anything. Spread the word. Fans of the show are everywhere.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 7:02:26 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

I don't see Katana being web-winged because that seems to be a trait only seen in Scottish gargoyles, though it is possible the trait is in other clan's as well. I just think that in such a small clan (the Manhattan Clan) Greg and the artists will choose to exhibit a bit more variety.
I like the idea of her being a yellowish or tan though.

And I'd be willing to bet that we won't see Katana, Nash or Fu-Dog until Issue #12.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 6:36:33 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

Won't Katana presumably premiere in issue 10? Or will Brooklyn be disappear in issue ten, and not reappear until issue 12?
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Noodles, anyone?
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 6:16:40 pm EST from 68.34.84.220

Given that Robby is a former TGS staff member, Rebel's most recent comment is probably correct. Of course, that would only be an issue if Robby is the colourist for #12.
Spen
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 6:08:29 pm EST from 66.43.205.110

I got a PS3 for christmas last year and it's good, i just cant hook it up to the internet yet.
And on Katanna i picture her with black hair and for some reason a dark red. I dont know why b/c then she and Brook wouldn't look good together but thats what i see.
bob
no, are ya mad these are your childern... no one threatens my eggs.- princess Katherine- "Avalon Part 2"
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 4:40:28 pm EST from 66.202.98.53

My most recent post was meant as tongue-in-cheek, hence the Colbert quote. Sorry if that was lost.

In the mean time, I'll drop off a music video, some of you have probably seen this, some of you might not have.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kTItD0Lie1A
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 4:27:48 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

>GB
REBEL> <<I'm really hoping she's NOT green, and does NOT have black hair (though, I guess this is probably pretty likely).>>

Why is it "probably pretty likely"? What are you basing this on? Have you spoken to Robby Bevard, or any other colorist on the book?

Rebel already responded explaining why she thought Katana would have black hair. Her comment "probably pretty likely" was directed to her hair being black, not her being green.

I think it was fairly obvious what she meant, especially after she explained to you the first time you challenged her.

Sorry, I just think you are too combative sometimes. If you think I'm out of place in saying so, I'll keep quiet in the future.
Sebastian
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 4:20:20 pm EST from 128.12.69.35

Rebel> Earlier this week, you said th exact opposite.

"Pick a side, we're at war!" -Stephen Colbert
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 3:30:48 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Katana > I'm also kind of doubting that Greg and his colorists will choose to make her green. I'm sure at least someone on staff (not necessarily Greg) has read a little TGS or has seen some of the fan-art of Sata, so I'm betting they try to differentiate her from Sata as much as possible.
Rebel
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 3:24:00 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

PS3> I got a Wii at launch and to my surprise, we later got a 360 as well. (Hence my past talking about "Mass Effect".) I had thought early on that I'd be getting a PS3 as I had the previous two PlayStations, but I haven't and I still don't intend to in the near future. The price has been a factor. I don't have an HDTV. And there just haven't been that many PS3 exclusive games that I'm excited about. The only game to come out so far that piqued my interest was "Lair" and that got a lot of really, really bad reviews. I have no desire to jump into hi-def DVDs just yet, so the "least expensive Blu-Ray player" argument doesn't hold much sway for me. I think Sony is starting to recognize the mistakes they made with the PS3 and I'm sure there will be games that at least tempt me to think about picking one up. But for now, no thanks.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 1:40:39 pm EST from 209.6.248.33

Samuel> The newest information we have from Greg Weisman can be found here: http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?rid=733

Using that information and suggestions from people in the CR, you can read the estimated release dates for the comics by clicking on the link below to The Gargoyles Pulse.
(The Gargoyles Pulse - updated Mondays)
Anthony Tini
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 1:39:13 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

Just a reminder -- the deadline for art and story submissions for the Gathering 2008's "Items of Enchantment" anthology is fast approaching! It's March 1st.

We're currently most in need of artists to sign up for the various items. Please help by spreading the word.

More info:
http://community.livejournal.com/g_anthologies/ -- a livejournal community
http://www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com/g2008/anthology.html -- the official con page
Christine - [<--------- 2008 Anthology!]
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 1:17:52 pm EST from 71.112.165.135

So, going backwards to a previous gargoyle topic, I was wondering why you don't see Katana being a web-wing gargoyle, Matt? I personally can't wait to see her design.

Also, I agree with Rebel, that I hope her hair isn't black.

I'd like for her to be a nice yellow. Because there aren't any yellow main characters yet. Plus it's my favourite colour. I don't know. I'm really looking forward to issue ten though.

Speaking of which, do we have any new info on the release dates for upcoming issues?
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Noodles, anyone?
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 1:14:46 pm EST from 68.34.84.220

No buying PS3 for me.
There aren't any interesting games out on that thing (I'd sooner buy the Wii) and I don't like there keeping the region lock crap. Not to mention that I'm in Europe, the PS3 is extra expensive there.
I don't have an HD TV and have no intention of buying one. DVD and SD are good enough for me.
Anonymous
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 11:51:34 am EST from 89.247.216.87

BLAISE> Do you have a digital camera? IF you do, Could you take a picture of a star for me?

6135 Hollywood Blvd.> Charles "Buddy" Riogers (Star of "Wings")

If you could, That would be incredibly awesome! I need it for a project I am working on...

Thanks any which=way!
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 11:39:50 am EST from 75.156.180.163

With the format war over, anyone plan on buying a PS3 in the near future?
(The Gargoyles Pulse - updated Mondays)
Anthony Tini
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 11:14:55 am EST from 159.240.11.254

Meant to add...As far to anyone's knowledge he did not commit suicide. Think about it. He had plans for that day and that week. People who are gonna kill themselves don't call their private masseuse to come over the next morning.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 7:37:50 am EST from 65.33.45.29

Algernon>Heath was the one who said playing the Joker was keeping him up at night. I read it in a newspaper and they quoted it from a tv program. This article mentions it we well as Jack saying he "warned" Heath. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/01/24/2008-01-24_jack_nicholson_warned_heath_ledger_on_jo.html
I don't read gossip rags. I read newspapers or watch interviews on TV.

Greg B>Jack did an interview with MTV when he said he was furious he wasn't called for it.
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1573617/20071106/story.jhtml
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 7:36:37 am EST from 65.33.45.29

Greg B> I know what you mean. To my mind Nicholson just didn't bring that kind of manic energy that the Joker really needs, like you never know if he's going to come at you with a switch blade or a rubber chicken. Mark Hamill had it in spades, judging by the trailers Ledger seems to have tapped into that as well, hell even Caesar Romero had it albeit in a highly light form. Jack Nicholson on other hand? Great actor but his Joker is vastly over rated. I've always kinda felt he wasn't really playing the Joker so much as an evil Jack Nicholson.

Siren> I wouldn't pay much heed to the whole "The Joker is so EEEEEVILLL that Ledger was driven to suicide by playing him" thing. Unless this movie is going waaaay darker then BB, I doubt we'll see anything suicide worthy out of Ledger's Joker. Besides Hollywood gossip rags are only slightly more credible then the Weekly World News.
Algernon
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here" -Jayne Cobb
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 7:04:26 am EST from 149.157.1.180

I'm a HUGE fan of Jack Nicholson. That being said, I did not care for his Joker.

I never heard about him complaining that he wasn't cast, when was this?
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Fri, Feb 22, 2008 12:03:48 am EST from 75.56.245.4

Rebel> "Anyway, hope I didn't spoil things for you too badly. :("

Meh, I have it videotaped off Cartoon Network, so no worries. I've been taping episodes regularly since the Chunin Exam arc.

No spoiled me either. I just don't have it on DVD.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 11:30:07 pm EST from 75.60.191.161

Greg B> My bad :)

Jack was pissed he wasn't approached for the role. He think he is best for the role and he doesn't understand this is a BRAND NEW BATMAN. The director has a totally different take on it than Burton or Schumaker (sp?). He is making it his own. He trashed the new movies too saying Burton has the real vision. And yes, Burton had a great vision. But in the world of comic books, new writers/artists means new stuff. No matter what, when you get new writers/artists/direction, it won't be the same. Look at all the reincarnations of X-Men. They started with what looked like normal looking people and eventually, got 100s of characters with so many designs and soap opera stories, its NOTHING like the original comic. Just because its not Burton's Batman doesn't mean its less than. Jack's just pissed off because The Joker was "his" character and he was "born" to play it. WTF-ever.
And before Jack fans flame me, he is a fantastic actor. I love a lot of what he does. For the script written, he did a good Joker. But he was just a bit corny. Not enough psychotic.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 11:13:10 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

DPH > Maybe so, but my answer and Greg's answer are still valid. Nicholson was never even considered for a role in the new Batman movies.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"I know what I like, and I like what I know..." - Genesis
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 10:55:22 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

gxb - Siren's response was the answer that seemed to answer my question best.

**disappears into ultra-thin air**
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 9:25:09 pm EST from 98.20.246.23

Siren> I was talking to DPH.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 9:06:30 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Harvester: I remember vividly the day my boyf told me that Mark Hamill did that voice, I DIED.

*raises hand*
Valerie - [vaddoniz at gmail dot com]
I need... a 'de-tect-ive.'
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 8:38:45 pm EST from 24.187.32.2

Greg B. I wasn't saying that at all. He wasn't a bad Joker, but I didn't like him much. But the Burton film was still good
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 8:38:12 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

I swear, the next person who says "they should re-film every scene the Joker was in" will get smacked.

Do those people know what it takes to make a movie? Do they know how many millions of dollars that would cost? It's not just hiring a new actor, you need to create a whole new wardrobe (to fit him), re-build all the sets, bring back every actor who was done filming their parts, buy more film. Rent every location again. Rent the equipment again. Rent the trucks, plains and other modes of transport again. Plus the agents fees, and all sorts of other expenses.

Not to mention that it is a slap in the face to Heath Ledger also.

You have a brain, use it. Think about what it is that you're about to say, before you say it. If it seems to run counter to common sense, than it probably does.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:49:01 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Raise your hand if you thought Mark Hammill's work as the Joker was better than his role as Luke Skywalker. It might be construed as two different things, since one of them is voice-acting, but still...

*raises hand*
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:45:28 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

DPH> Because Jack Nicholson is too old and too fat. IMO he never felt like The Joker in the first movie. The only actor to ever portray Joker to perfection is Mark Hamill. His voice carried that entire character to new heights. It was how I always felt Joker would act and sound. Not Heath Ledger's Joker is different from Jack's and Mark's. From what I have seen/heard, this new Joker is not as cartoony and silly as Jack and Mark's are. He is far darker and even more psychotic-scary type. From an article I read about Heath's death, its like the Joker killed Heath. Heath said since he finished filming the Batman movie, he wasn't able to sleep. Playing the Joker, someone so depraved of compassion and humanity took a toll on him. He said in an interview only weeks before his death, he couldn't sleep and was taking sleeping pills to cope. So in some ironic way, The Joker killed Heath Ledger.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:43:21 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

Rebel: You mean Peter Finch? If you haven't seen the movie, I definitely recommend it.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:32:05 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Wil Smith should be in the running for Best Actor for "I Am Legend" but the Academy has a history of ignoring "action" films.

DPH > Why would that be necessary? Filming of the new Batman film was complete when Ledger died. All they'll do is add an "in memory of..." tag in post-production like they did with "The Crow". Besides... have you seen what Jack Nicholson looks like these days?

127 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" - The Joker
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:27:21 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

"Plus, from what I've read on the internet, that role basically cost him his life, since he started talking pills and things because of it."

Don't believe everything you read on the internet... while I'm sure everyone would love to believe that the Joker is such a bad-ass that he killed a real person, actors have played worse humans beings and survived...

Hmm... I'm all for Ratatouille winning best animated picture. (Hell, one of the better movies period that I saw this year. Though it seems like it was in the theater a life-time ago.) I can't really think of a movie that blew me away this year... but then I never saw Old Country. On other hand, it doesn't really look like my kind of thing. Then again, now that I think about it, the only movies I can even remember seeing were the three-tri-sequels. Spider-man 3, Pirates and Shrek... and then OotP... and none of those are oscar-worthy obviously. (As well put together as Order was)

So... uh yeah. Time to do research on the matter I suppose.
Aldrius
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:26:57 pm EST from 207.112.72.71

DPH> What are you talking about?

Rebel> It is way too soon to be talking about next year's Oscars, especially in regards to a movie that has yet to come out.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 6:10:45 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

Why not use the actor who played the Joker in the 1st movie in the new movie with the Joker?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 5:57:06 pm EST from 98.20.246.23

Out of curiosity, do you guys think that Heath Ledger as the Joker might be a nomination next year? Judging from the previews...well, let's just say he seems brilliant to me. Plus, from what I've read on the internet, that role basically cost him his life, since he started talking pills and things because of it. Even if he's not that good, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a sympathy nod. As far as I know, there haven't been many oscars awarded posthumously. The only one that comes to mind right now is that actor from Network, but that was a long time ago.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 5:45:13 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

****A preoccupied Blaise wanders into the Room, looking over a calculator.**** Getting some finances in order (darn tax season), but I have enough time for a few responses.

BATTLE BEAST> Well, I live about 2 miles from the Walk of Fame. Why?

OSCAR NOMINEES> Thanks to being in SAG (and voting for SAG awards), I actually got some "For Your Consideration" mailers, and thus have actually seen some of the movies this year.
BEST PICTURE will most likely go to "No Country for Old Men." It is a well-made, intense movie with excellent writing, direction, and acting, and it leaves a lasting impression and even a desire to see it again (and that last is impressive when you consider the fact that I did not like the movie and it made me quite angry).
BEST ACTOR should go to Daniel Day-Lewis, although I'm quite happy Johnny Depp's turn as Sweeney Todd was nominated. But Daniel was brilliant--I was particularly struck by how his acting choices were not always the most obvious ones (this is especially true for me in the delivery of his last line).
For BEST ACTRESS, I have unfortunately only seen Julie Christie in "Away From Her" so I'm biased.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR will probably go to Javier Bardem--he's already got a nice little collection of that particular award. He was good, no arguments there, but I personally preferred Hal Holbrook's performance in "Into the Wild."
SUPPORTING ACTRESS...I have not seen enough to offer an opinion.
ANIMATED FEATURE...ditto, sadly.

Back to the grind for me. Until next time, farewell. ****Blaise wanders into the fireplace and vanishes in the flames.****
Blaise
"Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life."--Terry Pratchett's "Jingo"
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 4:21:11 pm EST from 4.232.33.162

Best Animated Feature> I'm torn, but in a good way. I'd love to see "Persepolis" win because it's an independent animated feature and very different from what many people think of as an animated feature and i thought it was quite good. Plus it's 2D and it could use the publicity boost more than a film backed by the Disney marketing machine. On the other hand "Rattatouille" was extremely well done(with just a few tiny bits of awkwardness), really lovely CG attached to a great story. I think I'm leaning ever so slightly towards "Persepolis", but I'll be happy whichever wins.

I never saw "Surf's Up!", I don't have much desire to, and it won't win anyways. Even Sony is surprised it was nominated and penguin movies are so last year.
Demonskrye - [demonskrye(at)gmail(dot)com]
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 1:07:25 pm EST from 209.6.248.33

Does anyone here live in or near, or frequent downtoawn Hollywood, specifically near the walk of fame?
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 12:47:30 pm EST from 75.156.180.163

Seeing as how I am the reining Oscar buff in the comment room (Just go to my webiste to which the link has been psoted for years), I will add my two cents worth.

I ahave seen all the BEST PICTURE nominees, as I always do before Oscar Night.

BEST PIC: NO Country for Old Men is the Best film of the year.

Best Actor: Johnny Depp was brilliant in Sweeny Todd.

Best Actress: Ellen Page again was Brilliant in Juno. She delivered her performance like she was a veteran actress. (And NO, not just because she is Canadian, which already puts her one step ahead of every one!:P )

Best Supporting Actor: Javier Brdem was insane as the villian in No Country. HE was Just plane evil, menacing, and cold blodded. his weapon of choice was even more viscious!

Best Supportign Actress: Saoirse Ronan was terrific in Atonement, although she is young, I think she was the Best this year. But it will probably go to Tilda Swinton, who wasn't nearly as good.

Best Director: The Coen Bros. For No Country. No Contest.

Best Animated Feature: I only Saw Ratatouille, and it was pretty good. So I have to pick this one.

As always, you can check out my website by clicking on the link below or going to:

www.geocities.com/oscarmovs

Check out my extensive trivia links, reviews and other bits of stuff.

Movies are my passion, and I like to share it with people. Enjoy!
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 12:00:48 pm EST from 75.156.180.163

The only category I can make a guess on or have a real opinion on is Best Animated Feature, which I predict will go to Rataouille. Persepolis might get it just for being foreign and artsy, but I am rooting for the rat. After all, I have accurately guessed every winner since it's inception back in 2000 or so.
Jack-Pumpkinhead - [jtjgundam at hotmail dot com]
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 10:19:12 am EST from 204.8.190.42

Having seen both those movies, I'm also rooting for Javier Bardem for "Best Supporting Actor." I might have to update my list of favorite movie villains because of Anton.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 7:21:10 am EST from 71.62.198.251

KingCobra > I watched them on cartoon network for a while, but now I just watch the subtitled episodes from dattebayo. I probably will get the box sets someday though. Anyway, hope I didn't spoil things for you too badly. :(

No Country > Man, this movie was amazing. Haven't seen "There Will Be Blood", but it has to be incredible if it's as good as "No Country".
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 4:17:40 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Greg B.> I've been hearing good things about 'No Country For Old Men', and am planning to go see it. I'm also holding onto hope for it to win.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 2:59:27 am EST from 75.60.191.161

As long as we're being off topic.

If Daniel Day Lewis does not win Best Actor this Sunday, I shall be quite miffed. He was robbed in 2002 after playing Bill the Butcher in "Gangs of New York".

That being said, I am torn between "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". Both were the best films of the year and deserve the big prize. Usually, there's one movie I back and hope for, this year I have two. Kind of like how I'm feeling about the election.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 2:53:56 am EST from 75.56.245.4

Rebel> Hadn't seen it. In fact, I don't even have that volume yet. The only volumes I have are 1 (that starts the Land Of Waves arc) and 6 (Naruto Vs. Gaara). It's cheaper for me to find the sets at Wal-mart, but I don't have money to splurge on it too often, and they don't always have any/all of the sets anyway.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 2:46:24 am EST from 75.60.191.161

Yeah, I really hate how they take out all the blood and stuff when they show it on cartoon network. For example, that crazy awful cut that Naruto gets when he's battling Kabuto in the go-get-Tsunade arc is completely cut out in the cartoon network version...and frankly, that cut is a huge part of what makes Naruto seem so awesome in that battle.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 2:25:32 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Rebel> "for example, Naruto is a pretty serious anime"

You should see the uncut DVD box sets. Even more serious there.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 1:56:15 am EST from 75.60.191.161

Haha, yeah, it is really cool. Generally I don't like it when artists randomly give a character an unnatural hair color (for example, Naruto is a pretty serious anime at times, but the fact that Sakura has pink hair for no apparent reason kinda takes something away from it, from my point of view). But in Malibu's case, it's not unnatural at all...it's just a product of the clone's accelerated growth. It's awesome.

I wonder if there are any gargoyles that naturally have hair colors that we don't see on humans? I guess white counts, since we generally only see it on old humans, but I wonder if there are any other "off the wall" hair colors amongst gargoyles. I guess its possible, since they certainly have an array of skin colors.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 1:47:16 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Matt: On Puck/Thailog -- Yeah, I can definitely see what your seeing . . . can you imagine that?

Puck's just full of tricks, huh? :P
Phoenician
"The Suspense is Terrible . . . I Hope it Lasts" -- Willy Wonka
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 1:44:26 am EST from 157.242.211.39

Bet you love Malibu then. Not everyday you find a guy with green hair.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 12:51:09 am EST from 24.207.160.51

It bothers me a little. I'd like to see more gargoyles with red, blonde, or white hair. I find black hair to be a little unremarkable and I prefer the aesthetic of other colors (at least when it comes to cartoon characters, not real people). Black hair in cartoons and comics just never looks as cool to me as other colors...I guess it's because you can't do as much with it since black is so dark, so it's hard to get any cool effects. Anyway, just my opinion and I hope this hasn't offended anyone. I just want a little more variety.
Rebel
posted @ Thu, Feb 21, 2008 12:12:27 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Rebel> I think Greg Weisman would say that the black hair was an example of his "Chameleon Mutation Gene" at work.

I'd put money on Katana having black hair, for that matter, I think Nashville will have black hair as well. That doesn't bother me. Worldwide, it seems to be the most common hair color among gargoyles anyway.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 11:05:33 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

Greg > I said that because it seemed like most (if not all) of the gargoyles in "Bushido" had black hair (it's been awhile since I watched that episode). That episode makes me think that that's the only hair color amongst asian gargoyles, much like it is the only natural hair color amongst modern day asian people (not counting people that have things like albinism). I actually think that if the gargoyles evolved the same hair colors as the local humans...well, that just seems pretty silly to me. Who is to say that the pressures that caused asian people to evolve the way they evolved would have affected the gargoyles the same way?

But anyway, I know "Bushido" was just a sample and there's a good chance that's not how it is.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 10:50:09 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Patrick - <Any other animal will eat and knock you over to get to the bowl.> Yea, taking a bone from a hungry dog is mission impossible. I even had a cat that once stole a mouse from a snake because of hunger. Yea, that's what separates us from animals. Ability of our mind to override our bodies.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 10:47:02 pm EST from 98.20.246.23

REBEL> <<I'm really hoping she's NOT green, and does NOT have black hair (though, I guess this is probably pretty likely).>>

Why is it "probably pretty likely"? What are you basing this on? Have you spoken to Robby Bevard, or any other colorist on the book?
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 10:08:23 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

I'm really hoping she's NOT green, and does NOT have black hair (though, I guess this is probably pretty likely). I have seen way too many fan-arts with that, and I find it really boring.

If I had to guess, I would say that there are three colors that I am (moderately) confident she won't be: red, lavender, or purple. Red because Brooklyn is, and I doubt the artists would make a pair of gargoyles the same color. Lavender because Angela and Goliath are already that color and I bet they'd go for more variety. Purple because Thailog and Brentwood are already that color (though I'm less confident about this, because we don't see these characters as often).

I also kinda doubt she'll be the same color as any members of the Manhattan clan...or even if she is the same color, it will probably be a different shade. Here are some colors in gargoyles that I'd like to see more of: white, black, orange, yellow, dark blue, different shades of brown (maybe a dark chocolatey brown) and a much richer green than we've seen yet.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 10:06:05 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

So I'm looking at the Thailog pic (Samuel's post) and the Puck pic (Patrick's post) and it seems to me that Puck's hair continues on to the bottom of the Thailog pic. Am I seeing things?

I really doubt Katana would have a wing structure similiar to Lex. I mean it is possible that trait is found among the Ishimura Clan, but I just can't see Greg and the artists going that way with her. She'll be quite the surprise, thats for sure. I know most fan-art of her has had her green with b;ack hair. It'll be interesting to see what color she turns out being.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 9:19:17 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

Jesus Christ, Samuel. That would be awesome.

Instinct Denial > I believe dogs can be trained to not take meat from strangers. However, I don't know if this counts. For one thing, I don't know how long it would last. Sure, it would work for a well-fed dog, but if dog has been without food for X days, would it still work? It might, but even then, it's possible that it's still following its instincts. I was watching this program on National Geographic about dogs, and apparently, they instinctually look to humans for guidance, assistance, and leadership. So even if a very hungry dog refused food from a stranger, it might still be following its instincts to "obey human leader".
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 8:04:58 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

So, today at work, I was day-dreaming, and I realized that I really hope that Katana is a web-wing gargoyle like Lexington. Because that would be nice. And they could have a third hatchling with her wings and name it Shuriken.

I was very bored at work.
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Noodles, anyone?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 7:56:55 pm EST from 68.34.84.220

A horse conditioned by a trainer to ignore certain stimuli that would normally trigger an instinctual reaction is not equivalent to a human making a conscious decision in his or her own mind not to engage in a specific activity. Only the human species has the power of mind over body when it comes to choosing NOT to satisfy our animal instincts. A hungry person presented with food can employ self-restraint and choose not to eat. Any other animal will eat and knock you over to get to the bowl.

128 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 7:29:04 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

The only animals who don't have sex are either:
Isolated animals. Who have no animal of at the very least, a similar species. For instance, a dog may mount a goat if there were no other dogs there. Its instinct to mate is so strong that it may go for the nearest animal of similar size just to help quench that instinct. Same reason horses a horse kept with a zebra caused surprise birth.
The only other animals that don't have sex are those animals that are both sexes. Snails, slugs, even some types of lizards are hermaphrodites. They may not copulate with another animal, but inside their body, copulation occurs.

I've never heard of an animal choosing not to have sex of some kind. Unless its isolated, altered, or a hermaphrodite. Humans can make that choice, but STILL we have the instinct to have sex. That is why priests and cardinals who swore their body and soul to God have been caught with prostitutes, children, even their own congregation members. They couldn't fight the instinct to have sex. Some can and some can't. Its self-awareness as well as feeling you have made an obligation that people may choose not to have sex. But that doesn't mean that at some point(s) in their life, they won't feel they want sex.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 7:09:20 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

I think lots of animals can deny their instincts. For example, a horse's instinct is to run when it gets spooked. It evolved this way because of predators...horses that 'spooked' easily were more likely to run from predators, thus more likely to survive and pass on genes. (Interestingly enough, the Icelandic horse never had any natural predators, so it is a breed of horse that has no 'spook' instinct).

But anyway. Police horses are trained to ignore their instincts. The trainers do all kinds of things to spook the horses, and they are trained not to spook and run. They are trained to deny their instincts. Once they have been trained, they deny their instincts on a daily basis as they walk up and down busy, frightening city sidewalks and such.

I think most animals integrate their instincts and the behaviors they have learned in their daily lives. Sometimes they may learn a behavior that is the opposite of what their instinct tells them to do...this is not common, but it happens sometimes.

But, I do see what HoE is saying. We deny our instincts on a much more complex level than other animals do. While an animal will likely only deny its instincts for practical reasons, humans can deny their instincts for much more abstract things (for example, "causes"). To use food denial as an example: an animal might go without food so that its young, or a member of its group, could have food. But humans will go without food to prove a point, to show dedication to a cause...things that are very abstract and may have no immediate benefit for ourselves or anyone we know (for example, having a hunger strike in America to raise awareness for poverty and starvation in Africa).

I think ultimately animals do almost everything we do...but the difference is, the degree and complexity to which we do them. I don't think there is one dividing thing which separates us from animals...it is merely a separation of degrees.

In regards to symbols, I found a video on the internet of an elephant that paints pictures of other elephants. It creates a 'symbol' of an elephant on a piece of paper. Much more simple than anything we do, but still worth noting.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 6:53:54 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

HofEyes> I can think of lots of animals that ignore their hunger for reasons important to them. And I'm sure there are lots of animals that live their lives without ever having sex. Most humans do have sex at some point in their lives, as do most animals, but the fact that some don't (due to choice or other factors) does not mean they are denying their instincts. In the case of the monks, they are merely supressing their instincts, and I'm sure it is a struggle at times for them. I'd be willing to bet that they'd agree that those instincts are impossible to deny.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 6:05:24 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

"Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, Image, IDW, Devil's Due, Avatar, Aspen Studios and Gemstone distribute 100% of their comic store orders through Diamond. Some other publishers distribute directly to stores or through *other distributors* and as a result this analysis *may underestimate* their sales."

I firmly believe our numbers are better than that counting system keeps track off
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 4:05:46 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Who says we can deny our instincts? The fact that human beings go on hunger strikes, disobeying the portion of their brains that tells them they must eat. Same thing with sleep deprivation. Or the fact that the Tibetan monks can live their entire lives without getting laid. Which is odd, because the celibate thing sure isn't working for priests and cardinals.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 3:22:42 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Here's a list with quantities sold: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/12097.html

Only 1,603 sold, but I suppose at 5x the normal comic price, that's not bad. I wouldn't feel bad about selling less than Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. I believe that's SLG's best known product and probably has a large Invader Zim contingent.
Lumpmoose - [lumpmoose at googles dot email dot service]
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:38:53 pm EST from 128.101.32.234

Jamesman: #8 looks like it will be released soon, but there's no set date. Greg's latest update is here: http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?rid=733

If you want to get an e-mail update for new releases, you can subscribe to the e-mail alert list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slg-gargoyles/join

My trade came today. I was a bit apprehensive about the smaller size, but it's actually really cool. The only thing that disappoints me is the text on some of the non-comic pages seems to have text that's quite low-resolution. Haven't had time to have a good read-through but I'm looking forward to it.

In other trade news, Clan-Building 1 was ranked 79th on Diamond according to Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/marketreport/Jan08sales.html). Not sure how that compares really (though it's not the highest SLG book).
Ed Reynolds
"Bacteria --> fish --> mermaid --> man." -- Karl Pilkington
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:20:40 pm EST from 213.187.39.61

Thanks Anonymous

I'm still lost on where to go for up-to-date information on release dates. SLG's website is absolutely no help, and the weekly shipping list I used to check doesn't appear to cover "independant" comics anymore. Most of the time, I find out an issue was released by seeing you guy discussing the issue, and then I have to scramble to find a copy before they're all sold out (I had to get Bad Guys off eBay because I was so late).
Jamesman
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:12:36 pm EST from 69.120.180.71

You could get the TPB (collecting issues 1-6), otherwise you are up-to-date.

Btw, Gorillas are able of using ASL, I think that would count as using symbols.
Dolphins can have a concept of time, along the lines of "bring red cross first, bring blue ball to goal point afterwards". And certain bird species are quite capable of predicting the outcome of an action and even make educated choices (bird hiding food, another bird seeing that and remembering where the food is to get it later, but first bird sees second bird looking waits till second bird is not looking any longer and hides food in a different place).
Anonymous
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:00:26 pm EST from 89.247.254.44

Sebastian > Thanks for the apology. It's cool.

I'm also sorry if I overreacted. It's just that my opinions are fairly radical in most areas, and I get a lot of criticism for that, so now I'm fairly sensitive to people exaggerating what I'm saying.

I once made a comment (not here) that maybe individual humans ought to put a little more thought into their own, and their partner's, family medical history before they decide to have kids, and someone called me a "nazi". If both partners have a family history of Disease X, and Disease X is both life-threatening and passed through genes, then I don't think it's asking too much for that couple to at least *consider* adoption if they want kids (unless science can provide some way for their child to not not inherit the genes for that disease). They shouldn't be forced to not have kids, however...I don't think it's right to force people to do/not do anything, in matters like these. Then again, you have people like Stephen Hawking who make massive contributions to humanity, despite genetic abnormalities, so there's always a few exceptions.

Also, I think it would be great if our society didn't pressure people to marry and have kids as much as it does. There are a great many people who never married, but live perfectly happy lives. My sister, for example, was extremely depressed for several years because she realized she was past "marrying age" and would never get married. Later on, she got over it and it didn't upset her anymore. She's living life to the fullest, enjoying every minute. I have an aunt in her 60s that's like that too. She doesn't feel like her life is lacking anything, even though she doesn't have a husband and kids. My point is, society seems to try and instill in people the idea that if they don't marry and have kids, they'll never be happy, which isn't true. It's not as bad as it used to be, like in the 1800s, for example, but there's still that pressure. A spouse and kids are great, but they aren't necessary to have a complete and happy life. Some part of the desire to have kids is because of biological urges, but a very significant part is because society teaches us that we are "supposed" to. I think many people, without this pressure, would decide that having children isn't the right decision for them.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:00:15 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

So where exactly are we now in terms of released issues? I have Gargoyles #1-7 and Bad Guys #1, but are those the only issues out right now? I can never keep up with the release of the issues, in part because I can't find information regarding release dates, and in part because the release schedule is show sporadic. :(
Jamesman
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 1:46:56 pm EST from 69.120.180.71

Rebel>
Sorry about the insinuation about A Brave New World. I meant it as an example of a society that is open to different sexual relationships. Yes I meant to insinuate that such a society would lead to an unhappy society, but only half-heartedly. I definitely didn't want to upset you.

Dominant Male Societies:
Baboons are often used as examples of close relatives, and their believed societal setup has been: Males create a rank system by physical dominance, the one at the top gets the most partners and the ones at the bottom get much fewer. Higher ranking males randomly attack lower males to increase subordination.

Recently it has been discovered that the males getting the most sex are actually, "nice" males. A male who spends all of his time grooming a single female will circumvent the system. If said female is being pursued by the top male, she will often runaway to the next highest male. With such a close ranking they will choose to fight, and female will sneak off and mate with the "nice" male.

I'm not using this as an argument for anything, I just think its neat. It may show why a monogamous mindset could be helpful, but it doesn't really apply to the argument of whether monogamy or polygamy is better for humans.
Sebastian
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 11:49:52 am EST from 128.12.69.35

In my mind, unnatural means supernatural. Which means that the only thing unnatural about human society and culture is religion and beliefs in god and other supernatural stuff. Everything else is all us and all natural because nature produced us and therefore is responsible for the thinsg we have accomplished.

HofEyes> "Matt: I'm referring to the fact that all animals operate on instinct. The only difference between humans and other animals is that our self-awareness allows us to deny said instincts, if we choose to."

Animals have certain instincts, yes, including humans. So what? There are other animals that are self-aware. Most of the great apes, dolphins, perhaps others. And who says we can deny our instincts? Who says other animals can't?
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 11:13:21 am EST from 24.207.161.41

Chris - <how did we get spammed?> In theory, very difficult. In practice, not that hard. Two possibilities exist: human or program. If it's a human literally typing that to spam this s8, only registration system can block it, but unless that becomes common place, a registration system is more than overkill. If it's a program, then I may have an answer. There has been a couple of times that I've entered a security code to post that I've entered before. In theory, the security code that is created is completely random. In practice, that isn't the case. If you can figure out how the security code is generated, then you can figure a way to get it right.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 11:05:23 am EST from 98.20.246.23

RJ > Absolutely not. I think it is absurd and heinously wrong to essentially force individuals to "care" for strangers whom they don't care about and will never meet. That's basically what socialism does when it takes your money, that you have earned, and uses it to pay someone else's medical bills. I also support flat taxes. The notion that it is somehow okay to steal from the rich and give to the poor is also unfair and absurd. Sure, rich people have plenty of money to spare, but still, it's THEIR money. Generally, they are intelligent people who work hard for it and make good financial decisions (yeah, *some* of them are just pompous, useless heirs, but I doubt most are). They should not be "punished" for that. (Note: I'm not rich).

Aldrius > "In my personal opinion, if anything weren't natural, we wouldn't be capable of doing it."

I agree wholeheartedly! All these people who get outraged at modern scientific advances and say we're "playing God" irritate me to no end. But here's the thing: we ARE capable (I think) of being a society of open-mindedness, where no one thinks they have a right to decide what is, and is not, moral and right for other people.

Algernon > You've got a lot of interesting things to say. I'm not sure what I think yet.
Rebel
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 9:54:01 am EST from 24.227.200.138

First of I'd like to say that I'm thoroughly enjoying this debate I'd encourage every one involved to make an extra effort to remain civil as possible as we're dealing with some rather contentious issues.

Rebel> "I would think that even in a society that was completely tolerant of any consensual sexual activity, the people would probably still be opposed to forced violations of others' bodies. But I'm not sure, since (as far as I know) there's never been a society quite like that"

There is probably a reason that such societies are so rare. The fact is that even consensual sex without any kind restraint can have major consequences both for the individuals involved and society as a whole. It is hardly a coincidence that the years since the sexual revolution have seen a huge rise in teen pregnancies and STD (not that these things didn't exist before hand, but they were no where near as prevalent).

Now one may argue that such things can be abated by the use of modern contraceptives and that is a valid point but there are other concerns at stake then simply medical ones. There is also the issue of jealousy. For most people being in a long term sexual relationship is a very intense experience. So learning that your significant other is "getting a bit on the side" can feel like a devastating emotional betrayal. One need only look at how many murders have been motivated by jealousy to see my point. Not that it excuses the vile crime of taking another human being's life but it illustrates what a powerful and destructive emotion jealousy can be.
Another point I'd like to raise is that some of us hear maybe confusing polygamy with promiscuity. In these kinds of debates it is important to clarify our terms as they are two very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity
(I want to apologies in advance to anyone who might take offence at my use of the word promiscuity, I know it has a rather derogatory connotation but I honesty could not think of any neutral term for the concept I was trying to get across. If any one knows a more suitable alternative please don't hesitate to step forward)
On a final note I'd like to put forward the following thesis. Society is in itself no less natural or subject to evolutionary pressures then any other aspect of the human animal. Humanity is by nature a social animal and feels it necessary to belong to a social order and part of that order includes whatever rules and obligations it requires of it's members. In turn societies are shaped often unconsciously by the collective needs and desires of their membership. As Siren has already pointed out our earliest ancestors may have followed the sexual habits of other primates but for what ever reasons they abandoned that mode of existence for what we would consider a more conventional model of sexual practice. The fact that such a model has managed to endure for thousands of years across a wide spectrum of cultures must surely say something in it's favor.
Algernon
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here" -Jayne Cobb
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 7:12:12 am EST from 149.157.1.180

how did we get spammed?
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 6:46:08 am EST from 66.211.201.24

Matt: I'm referring to the fact that all animals operate on instinct. The only difference between humans and other animals is that our self-awareness allows us to deny said instincts, if we choose to.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 6:42:12 am EST from 71.62.198.251

Alex> *blinks*

Off-topic> Can someone share a link to the Gargoyles 'something awful' page, please? I have a sudden to see it but I can't find it. Thanks.
KingCobra_582 - [KingCobra_582 at hotmail dot com]
Grr. Arg.
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 4:36:30 am EST from 75.60.191.161

Alex - I don't get your post. Is that supposed to be spam?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:43:52 am EST from 98.20.246.23

Production
produces the raw materials into the delivered goods, if they require processing
Customer service
supports customers who need help with the goods or services
http://mynameisiamadoctor.blogspot.com/
Procurement
responsible for acquiring the goods and services necessary for the business. Sometimes organized as:

Strategic sourcing
determines the business' needs and plans for acquiring the necessary raw materials and services for the business
Purchasing
processes the purchase orders and related transactions
http://mynameisiamadoctor.blogspot.com/
Research and Development
tests to create new products and to determine their viability (e.g. pilot plants)
Information Technology
Alex - [fent at fer dot com]
ok
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:30:25 am EST from 88.147.196.104

Sorry, I'm not saying much. Just giving my one cent on a couple of things.

"The idea that monogamy = good and polygamy = bad is a human-created concept, and that irritates me."

Most of what we do is a human-created concept. This entire planet only exists because humans (and other animals and the plants and anything that can perceive) perceive it to exist. We are social creatures. As such, we have societal needs and social desires. I've never lent any credo to this idea that what is 'natural' is not what we've created for ourselves as a society. Maybe that's why I've never believed in any organized version of god. The idea that there was some destined plan for us as a species, and many of the things we do defer or degenerated from that plan.

It's the same argument that those 'god hates fags' fellows use. As well as the same argument that many anarchists (that I've been exposed to anyway) use. That society and many things that society create are not natural.

In my personal opinion, if anything weren't natural, we wouldn't be capable of doing it.
Aldrius
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 2:22:44 am EST from 207.112.72.71

Yes, there's a lot more that seperates us from other animals than just being able to use symbols. Basically what Patrick said. We have the ability to look beyond the here and now, to dream, to create. We have the ability to shape our world around us, and use in-depth communication. I'de like to think that we evolved beyond the "survival of the fittest" credo. Maybe our distant anscestors practiced polygamy-but what's the purpose of that now? There's more to life than popping out perfect babies. And unlike most animals, it takes many years to raise a child.

And it's not just reliigion. what about the psychological ramifications of a society where anyone can go and sleep with anyone they wanted without consequences? I wouldhn't want to live in that kind of society, and I think it would definitely be detrimental to women, detrimental to our society as a whole, and detrimental to the mental states of many. Honestly Rebel and Matt, I'm not entirely sure what the point you're trying to make is here. Why tell me to "calm down"? I'm not freaking out, just offering a differing opinion.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 1:05:50 am EST from 69.183.58.155

Oops, forgot a name.
RJ
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 12:35:32 am EST from 63.20.11.206

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Mohammad said that sanctified marriage is the sole locus of the sexual act, and the punishment for adultery is death by stoning.

I would say that for members of the religions that follow the above (and I believe that would be a majority of the human population), humans are "supposed" to be monogamous.

Rebel> If you are able to do whatever the hell you want, do I get to choose not to pay for your treatments for the various diseases you'll inevitably contract?

Rebel> Just curious, are you a Socialist?
Anonymous
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 12:34:10 am EST from 63.20.11.206

SORRY to change the topic, but does anyone here live in or near, or frequent downtoawn Hollywood, specifically near the walk of fame?
Battle Beast - [Canada]
That is all I will say.
posted @ Wed, Feb 20, 2008 12:00:13 am EST from 75.156.180.163

When I took behavioral ecology, one thing some of my classmates were having trouble grasping was the variety of sexual behaviors, and the pros and cons each for EACH species and the pressures that would prefer one system for that species over another. Namely, some of them tried to apply them to human behavior, and mistakenly assuming that monogamy is the norm. Polygyny has its benefits and drawbacks, monogamy has its benefits and drawbacks. Also, there's the difference between social monogamy and behavioral monogamy (ie. having a mated pair that share the effort in raising the offspring, but either one or both may have mated with another mate). In humans, there isn't a norm. I recall him illustrating this point by explaining there is a plateau in Asia where a number of tribes will be monogamous, polygynous, and polygamous, all in the same area. There is no really set reason amongst humans to favor one mating preference over another other than cultural reasons, whatever they may choose it to be.
Asatira
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 11:42:52 pm EST from 68.119.82.26

Matt>No, not saying that at all. All animals, including humans have hard wiring for many behaviors.
For instance, no matter where you go in the world, a smile is a sign of happiness. Its a hard wired social behavior that has been part of us for centuries.

Albatross pair up for life because they are hard wired to.

IMO, humans were originally not meant to stay in lifelong pairs. At the very least, human social behavior may have started much like other apes. Where you have a dominant male who has his pick of females.

Staying in life long pairs is more a religious and cultural thing.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 11:01:57 pm EST from 65.33.45.29

What makes humans unique from any other animal on the planet is our brains and our ability to use them to solve problems and think beyond the here-and-now and ponder the abstract. No other animal conceives of the existence of God or an afterlife, buries its dead with ceremony, or looks into the night sky and ponders the infinite vastness of the universe.

As for polygamy... oddly enough, the great majority of its advocates are men. But I always wonder how many of them that want the multiple sex partners would be willing to devote the time and energy needed to provide for all those wives and children. Most people find it enough of a challenge to keep ONE family going. And therein lies the benefit to society of monogamy being the accepted standard in the eyes of religion and the law. There is a lot to the modern human existence than simply how many children you can sire before you die. Human children don't mature in six months like mice... they're at least an 18 year commitment.

129 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"I know what I like, and I like what I know..." - Genesis
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 10:56:25 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

I agree completely with Chris. The only real difference I can possibly see that makes humans stand out (besides our unique genetic code and the appearances that go with that) is our use of symbols. Though I wonder how much we may or may not be aware of other animals doing this as well.

HofEyes> "A dog can't stop being a dog, but a human can stop being "human," if they so choose."
- If you are so sure of that, prove it. I'm not trying to make a joke, I'm serious. What makes a human human and can we really just turn that off? And can other animals not do the same?
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:32:47 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

PGFish > As others have said, there's really not much that separates us from "the beasts". And besides, that sentiment presupposes that being "beasts" is a bad thing. And also, you've pretty much wildly misinterpreted what I've said. I'm a woman. I'm all in favor of women's rights. A sexually liberated society where consenting adults can do what they want without worrying about people judging them does not compromise women's rights in any way. In fact, it's actually MORE supportive of women.

Sebastian > I went and read the wikipedia article on Brave New World and frankly, your assertion that that's the kind of society I'm looking for is like when people call Hillary Clinton "Hitlery". You've misinterpreted, and exaggerated, what I've said, and then followed it up with a completely inappropriate and uninformed accusation. Thanks, pal.

People, if romantic love is the most natural and best path for humans to follow, it will prevail regardless. If it is NOT the most natural way, then people who opt not to go that route should not be criticized by those who think it is best and only way. Ultimately what I want is sexual and reproductive freedom and open-mindedness. I am not trying to minimize the value of romantic love. I am currently madly, hopelessly, wildly in love with a very special person, so I understand how powerful it can be.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:29:13 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

tool use was tossed out a while ago- even otters use tools

it was said for a while that the only thing they could find to distinguish humans from other animals was the aspect of religion- specifically remembering/ honoring the dead. But that has been knocked out of its place with the discovery that elephants rather ceremoniously caress the bones of lost relatives and frequent quite literal 'elephant grave sites'

we're down to the ability to use symbols to distinguish ideas- like what we are all doing now

the act of sex has very little to do with what separates humans from anything else

personally, I see no valid differences...
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 8:47:00 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Rebel: One of the things that differentiates man from the rest of the animal kingdom is that homo sapiens has the ability to act against its nature. A dog can't stop being a dog, but a human can stop being "human," if they so choose.

Personally, my own take on Romantic Love is that it's the biochemical equivalent of eating large quantities of chocolate. But it still serves its purpose. As someone pointed out, Huxley is a great example, but an even better one comes from Orwell. The Party was quite fond of punishing Romantic Love.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us." -O'Brien ("1984")
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 8:22:17 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Todd> Yes it is. Didn't see that article though.

PGFish> Nothing seperates us from "the beasts" except a few paltry genes. There are many species out there that act a lot more "moral" than humans do. No one here is trying to justify rape or oppression or whatever. Calm down.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 8:14:18 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

In today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, there was an interview with A. J. Trujillo, one of the owners of Star Clipper, the comics shop where I buy my copies of "Gargoyles". (And I know that it's where Matt goes to buy his copies, too.)
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 7:50:08 pm EST from 4.244.212.36

Yeah, we should totally go back to the time when men had free reign to take any women they chose, rape them, and force them to stay at home and watch the children while they go out for more conquests. *rolls eyes*

Dude, we're not living in the caves anymore, and it's not as if our species is on the verge of extinction. What about women's rights? What about love and trust between two people who have pledged themselves to each other? This has nothing to do with religion-it's what seperates us from the beasts. I don't buy into your argument rebel.
Purplegoldfish - [Skydragonn at aol dot com]
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 7:40:16 pm EST from 69.183.58.155

Read A Brave New World. That seems like a pretty good representation of the society you are looking for...
Sebastian
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 4:25:58 pm EST from 128.12.69.35

Algernon > That's a good point. Still, I would think that even in a society that was completely tolerant of any consensual sexual activity, the people would probably still be opposed to forced violations of others' bodies. But I'm not sure, since (as far as I know) there's never been a society quite like that.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 2:03:21 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Rebel> "I think our own innate sexual urges will lead us naturally to do whatever is best for ourselves as a species, and as individuals"

By that logic we should give rapists and pedophiles free reign. I'm not seriously suggesting that you actually advocating that but it's the ultimate end point if you let some people pursue their sexual appetites without restraint.
Algernon
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here" -Jayne Cobb
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 11:51:49 am EST from 149.157.1.180

FYI, I'm not necessarily advocating what I've said in my middle paragraph. I was just exploring some thoughts and possibilities (basically, exploring how we incorporated our need for pair bonds, but also human females' urges to mate with the "best" males).

Also, "best" is subjective, depends on the environment, and is not nearly as simple as I've implied it is.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 11:29:42 am EST from 76.165.32.125

I would definitely agree that many (if not all) humans have an innate desire to form pair bonds. However, while this may be an indicator of inherent social monogamy, it may not be an indicator of inherent sexual monogamy.

Many species which were once thought to be completely monogamous have turned out to be socially, but not necessarily sexually, monogamous. In other words, the females live with and raise their young with one mate, but they may engage in a little "hanky-panky" on the side. Thus, the children they raise with their mates may not all be the biological offspring of their mate. As cruel as this is, this actually provides some of the benefits of both monogamy and polygamy. You get two caring parents which will work hard together to bring up the offspring. So, you've got your "nurture" covered. But, you may also get the genes of the best males, so "nature" is covered as well. Maybe this is what humans tend towards? Females fall in love with and raise their children with "nice guys", but mate with "alpha males" on the side? It's a very disturbing and cruel thought, but it's certainly not outside the range of possibilities.

I think you mentioned this already, but there's a lot more to it than just clear-cut monogamy and polygamy. A lot goes on between these two extremes, and humans are surely not completely one way or the other. For me, the most important thing is not figuring out whether we are naturally inclined more towards polygamy or monogamy. It's working towards a society where people can do what feels natural and best to them, whether that be monogamy, polygamy, or a mix of both. I think our own innate sexual urges will lead us naturally to do whatever is best for ourselves as a species, and as individuals. I just hate to see us hampered by these notions of morality that we have created for ourselves. The idea that monogamy = good and polygamy = bad is a human-created concept, and that irritates me.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 11:14:03 am EST from 76.165.32.125

Well, then I guess we disagree somewhat. I think humans are generally inclined towards both. Though which we go towards depends on many factors. But you must see that the drive for many humans to find "the one" goes beyond culture, beyond religion. There is a deep instinctual human need to form a pair bond, or many pair bonds. I have no problems with polygamy, but I don't see how humans are any more predisposed towards it then monogamy.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:54:03 am EST from 24.207.160.51

I assure you Matt, I have a very thorough understanding of evolution.

My thoughts on monogamy (namely: monogamy is bad) were mainly directed towards humans, not all of nature. I should have clarified that. True, for some species, monogamy works well. But humans did not evolve to be monogamous, and forcing monogamy upon ourselves for religious/moral reasons is stupid. We're going against our own "programming", and ultimately not producing the best offspring we could produce. If we followed our own biological urges, instead of society's indoctrination, we would naturally tends towards polygamy in much greater numbers than we do now.

Also, I don't think Siren was saying that religion actually *created* monogamy. She was pointing out that the rise of monogamy in humans seems to coincide with the rise of religion. We didn't evolve to be monogamous, society forced it on us sometime relatively recently in the span of human history.

My argument, basically, is not that we should toss out monogamy and make everyone be polygamous. I just want to see a day when we stop demonizing polygamy and recognize it as just as good/natural (if not moreso) than monogamy. If we get rid of social norms and societal indoctrination of what human relationships are supposed to be like, people would tend to do whatever they feel is natural. For many people, that would be polygamy.
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:44:00 am EST from 24.227.200.138

Sorry for the double, forgot to respond to Siren.

Siren> "...evolutionary speaking, monogamy was started for religious reasons. Men and women cheat because they can't surpress the instinct that is pre-programed in them to find more/better mates."

-I'm sorry Siren, but that is crazy. Biology predates religion. Humans walk the line between polygamy and monogamy around the world and throughout history. SOME religions have reinforced one extreme or the other. But saying religion created monogamy is nuts. Are you going to tell me that a pair of albatross' breed together year after year and rarely find a new mate because their religion demands it? Are you going to tell me that human atheists are all polygamous?
Humans, like all things, are driven to produce young. Period. Often, monogamy is a very successful method to accomplish this. Sometimes polygamy works best. It is a case by case basis. We are complicated creatures, nothing is as cut and dry and black and white as you are making it.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:11:29 am EST from 24.207.160.51

Rebel> I'm not sure you understand how evolution works. What works great for one species, may not work for another. And nothing is black and white either. Human beings are not a monogamous species, but we are not a polygamous species either.

And saying monogamy is mostly a bad thing evolutionarily is ludicrous. Monogamy itself evolved and it has endured because its benefits are huge. Evolution has no goals, no motives, and no preconceived direction. Life is not constantly trying to improve itself. Given mutation and natural selection, a species may change very quickly, very slowly, go extinct or not change at all and still survive. Life wants to reproduce and make more life, that is what living things do. If monogamy assists in that goal, life may utilize that, but polygamy may work better for other species, and most species seem to do a mix of the two, including humans.

As for gargoyles, I don't think they had any need to evolve as quick breeders because until somewhat recently they were extremely successful and had dominated the planet. Their evolution favored monogamy and communal living and not laying tons of eggs. This meant that fewer hatchlings were produced, but their survival rate was very high. Once humans began to dominate, their survival rate dropped dramatically, but their breeding rate did not change, so they have nearly gone extinct. Thier slow breeding rate was never much of a liability until a new species (us) arrived on the scene. This happens all the time.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 9:04:31 am EST from 24.207.160.51

Sebastian >

I found this abstract of an article online. Is this what you were talking about?

"Evolutionary biologists had thought that male rivalry over females benefits the population as a whole, outweighing the costs of tactics such as those in fruit flies, where the males produce toxic semen that thwarts their rivals but also harms their mates. But in a study reported here last week at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution, researchers found that when they forced fruit flies to be monogamous, allowing evolution to disarm the seminal fluid, the monogamous population produced more offspring overall than control populations did."

If so, that's definitely very interesting. I'm not surprised that the monogamous population would have more offspring, since they reduced the toxicity in the males' semen.

But, to me it seems like there's a gaping hole in the whole thing...quantity != quality. They fail to mention whether the offspring of the monogamous population are as genetically "fit" as the normal ones. If they aren't, then I don't think that proves anything. Who cares if you can produce more offspring, if they are not as good?

If the results of this study indicate that the offspring of the monogamous population are as genetically fit as the offspring of the polygamous group (and, if it STAYS that way even after many monogamous generations) then I'd say that's some pretty powerful evidence against polygamy. But if they haven't accounted for fitness, then I don't think it's really complete.

(This does provide a compelling argument for why gargoyles would have evolved to be monogamous, however. Because they produce so few eggs and lead difficult lives, population growth may have had to take precedence over the fitness of the species, so it would make sense for them to be monogamous....that still doesn't account for the sexual dimorphism of males and females, but oh well.)
Rebel
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 3:19:55 am EST from 24.227.200.138

*Just passing through*
VA sighting: Just saw "God's Outlaw" (being aired on one of those Christian networks) scroll by on the TV Guide channel, and saw Roger Rees was one of the two actors that were listed. I did not know that he played Robin Colcord in "Cheers" until I just looked him up on the IMDb.

$19.95 for the TPB on Amazon? I just looked and as of right now, it's $17.59. BTW, what exactly is the Publisher's Weekly review that's on amazon's product page a review of???
Oh, and it's only $12.41 at buy.com
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 2:32:24 am EST from 63.20.15.233

On: "supposed to be monogamous"

Other than just behavior as a sign of monogamy, there is one biological mechanism that is taken as a clear sign of non-monogamous species.

I'm really sorry I don't know what the genes are, and maybe I'll find that paper later but the basic summary is as follows...

For non-monogamous species. Males pass on a gene to the fetus that will "steal" excess resources from the mother. In turn the females have a gene giving less resources to the fetus. Over evolutionary time it has basically been an arms race and if either gene is knocked out it will result in death. If the father's gene is knocked out, the mother will hoard too many resources and the fetus will die. If the mother's gene is knocked out the fetus will steal too many resources and the mother cannot survive herself, so the fetus dies, too.

I really need to find that article again because there are a number of things that seem wrong about this...

But they did experiments forcing fruit flies to be monogamous (forced pairing), and after about 40 generations were able to get a strain of fruit flies that were actually monogamous.

Anyways, humans have an equivalent gene to fruit flies.
Sebastian
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 1:02:35 am EST from 128.12.69.35

Aldrius, evolutionary speaking, monogamy was started for religious reasons. Men and women cheat because they can't surpress the instinct that is pre-programed in them to find more/better mates.
Siren
Don't knock on Death's door. Ring his doorbell and run, he hates that.
posted @ Tue, Feb 19, 2008 12:08:03 am EST from 65.33.45.29

"Humans aren't even supposed to be monogamous; that's just a social norm that we've imposed on ourselves."

Supposed to?

What is... supposed to?
Aldrius
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 11:52:05 pm EST from 207.112.72.71

Sorry for the double.

Keep in mind, I've generalized a great deal in that post, and there are always exceptions, etc.
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 11:30:49 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Monogamy has benefits, yes. Vulnerable offspring are more likely to survive if they are cared for by two "loving" parents than a lone female. Also, evolution of monogamy in a species usually leads to a very low degree of sexual dimorphism...meaning the males and females are roughly the same size and don't look very different from each other (though I don't know if this is necessarily a benefit).

But, from an evolutionary perspective, monogamy is actually more of a drawback. Because there are usually an approximately equal number of male and female offspring that make it to adulthood, it ultimately means that almost everyone gets a mate. The real key to a species' continued evolution, adaptation, and improvement, is that at least a significant portion of the population DOESN'T get to mate. Sure, some less fit young will not make it to adulthood and thus never get to mate, but nonetheless, a great many will. In non-monogamous species, the best males get to mate much more than lesser males, thus the best genes are passed on, which improves the species. Basically, natural selection plays a much greater role in non-monogamous species.
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 11:27:24 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Rebel> Don't state opinions as if they are fact. Monogamy has its evolutionary benefits and drawbacks, just like everything else.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 10:13:55 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

I think gay gargoyles of either sex are a "disaster" for population growth...but I can see how females would be more of a disaster. Reproduction in most species ultimately hinges much more on females than males. If you have 1 female and 10 males, there's a good chance the species wouldn't make it, but flip those numbers and there's a decent chance. Females are so very necessary, but only one or a handful of males is necessary.

^Of course, the above only applies in non-monogamous species (a.k.a. the vast majority of species), which gargoyles aren't. I actually find it a little surprising that gargoyles are "naturally" monogamous. From a biological perspective, monogamy doesn't really make much sense at all. Humans aren't even supposed to be monogamous; that's just a social norm that we've imposed on ourselves.
Rebel
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 10:05:05 pm EST from 24.227.200.138

Ok, I shouldn't have picked on those. In fact, one second thought, I was wrong. When you consider modern technology, an excess population of females is much better than an excess population of males.

Matt - Thanks for that confirmation. I didn't choose the numbers 10 or 12 because it quickly gets to an odd population problem rather quickly. With 8 couples, the problem of not enough mates shows up a lot slower than either 10 or 12. 16 is much better. I don't see a clan starting with more than 16 couples.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 9:58:20 pm EST from 98.20.221.47

Patrick: <As for "lesbian gargoyles who don't mate are a disaster for population growth"... why are you singling out only the females with that comment?>

Perhaps he knows something we don't?
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Snowshoes that bind me down. Just one more parasite in the surface layer. And I begin to get the feeling that I've been on this stage before and I'm the only player." -Ian Anderson
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 9:42:53 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

DPH> Your numbers are correct. I've done a lot of calculating in that vein myself. In a clan of eight or more couple, inbreeding shouldn't be a problem in the future. Even if pairing was random, they'd generally be 2nd or 3rd cousins at best, and Greg says that pheromonal cues help discourage close breeding.
Now as for your numbers, as I said, they are accurate, but they are extrememly unlikely to turn out so evenly. Keep in mind that if 16 eggs are hatching in a generation, that doesn't neccesarily mean 8 boys and 8 girls, so gender distribution could affect your numbers. Gay gargoyles, sterile gargoyles, and gargoyles that choose not to take a mate also factor in. Finally, you have problems of miscarriages, bad eggs and infant mortality.

Basically, gargoyle population growth is very difficult. Take the Avalon Clan. From the number crunching I've done, they would eventually go extinct but for the fact that they will probably be able to lay more than three eggs. For any real growth to occur in a clan, every gargoyle needs to parent at least two eggs.

The good news is that since many clans have been unable or unwilling to split due to human or space factors, there are probably some fairly large clans out there that can help suplement the smaller ones. But really, you get an idea of how slow gargoyle populations rise (if they rise at all) when in the next 200 years only two new clans will be formed, though it seems the rest of them will be near or at full clan numbers.
Matt - [St Louis, Missouri, USA]
"Let this mark the beginning of a Golden Age! Between all our clans, both Human and Gargoyle!!!" - Macbeth, "City of Stone"
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 9:16:52 pm EST from 24.207.160.51

DPH > No one ever said accuracy was easy, but an oversimplified model that ignores factors than can significantly alter the result are basically useless. In the perfect scenario, each couple must produce two offspring to maintain population levels in the long term. At most, as we are told, each couple can produce three. With each couple producing three offspring, the perfect scenario model is going to predict a doubling of the population in the long term at regular intervals. So the difference between maintaining, declining, or growing is all a function of those other factors.

As for "lesbian gargoyles who don't mate are a disaster for population growth"... why are you singling out only the females with that comment? Male gargoyles who don't mate for whatever reason aren't helping, either.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 8:31:35 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

HARVESTER - That depends on which version of the Theseus story is true in the Gargoyles Universe (whether Aegeus or Poseidon was his father).
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 8:05:25 pm EST from 4.245.19.72

My model was based on idea conditions, but that's the problem with the models on gargoyle population growth. You got to figure on lots of factors. First, you got to work out mortality rate. Then you factor in a coin-toss simulation to determine the gender of the children (Too many females or too many males equal distaster for population growth). Then, as much as I would not like to touch this with a light-year pole, factor in sexual orientation (lesbian gargoyles who don't mate are a disaster for population growth). Oh yea, there's also the personality clash potential that may leave multiple males and multiple females without partners. So how accurate of a model do you want?
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 8:02:23 pm EST from 98.20.221.47

Greg B: A bit ironic, then, that Taurus's ancestor was slain by someone who was not a full-blooded human.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Snowshoes that bind me down. Just one more parasite in the surface layer. And I begin to get the feeling that I've been on this stage before and I'm the only player." -Ian Anderson
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 7:53:55 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

"Is there any guarantee that a mated couple's egg actually hatches every time? Or that every season an egg is produced?"

There are no guarantees that either of those will happen, and statistically the odds are going to be against any such perfect scenario. There's also no guarantee that every generation is going to have an equal number of males and females so that everyone can mate, or that any couple will produce a given number of offspring. The estimate would be a lot more realistic if some mortality factors were included in the calculations.
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 7:28:35 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

I wonder if the New Olympians are still aware of their human ancestors. Those same ancestors lived over 3000 years ago, enough time for them to have been forgotten (especially if the New Olympians didn't want to remember them).
Todd Jensen
Gargoyles - did for monstrous-looking statues what "Watership Down" did for rabbits!
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 7:15:52 pm EST from 4.245.19.72

Is there any guarantee that a mated couple's egg actually hatches every time? Or that every season an egg is produced? If every 'mating' that occurs when a female human (don't throw things, I know they're 'gargoyles' not humans...) was fertile produced a child, we'd be much more overpopulated than we are now. And I'm sure miscarriages (in egg) could happen too.
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 7:09:01 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

I love that episode New Olympians, sigh I wish that greg had started the show on adult cartoon network, they would have let him had a little more freedom I think more then disney anyways.
DarkAngel
"You know how I feel about you right?" asked Elisa. "How we both feel, yes" replied Goliath. Elisa jumps up and gives him a kiss. "Good" hunter's moon part 3!
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 6:23:40 pm EST from 71.49.238.208

Clan Size - (pulls out notes)
Suppose I started with 32 gargoyles or 16 couples, forming a new clan and they reach their 1st breeding cycle:
16, 16, 16, 8, 16, 20, 20, 24, 30, 32, 32, 37. 37 is the 13th generation of eggs laid, assuming all gargoyle couples last to give birth to 3 eggs.
Suppose I started with 16 gargoyles or 8 couples, forming a new clan and they reach their 1st breeding cycle:
8, 8, 8, 4, 8, 12, 10, 10, 12, 15, 16, 16. The last 16 is the 12th generation of eggs laid, assuming all gargoyle couples last to give birth to 3 eggs. In this case, the 13th generation kinda has a problem: 18.5 eggs.
The thing I never worked out was the question of inbreeding. How many generations can a clan started with 16 couples go before having an inbreeding problem? Or one with 8 couples? I figure New Olympus gargoyle clan would have the worst problem with possible inbreeding, of course, I'd also suspect it to be one of the most viable clans around.
dph_of_rules
Whatever happenned to simplicity?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 6:22:22 pm EST from 98.20.221.47

The New Olympians have human blood, but a lot of them hate humans. That kind of self-loathing often leads to therapy.

130 days left until The Gathering 2008 in Chicago, Illinois!
Patrick - [<-- The Gathering 2008]
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 6:01:51 pm EST from 76.205.90.21

Chris> Except they are not, Greg has said so.

You can argue opinion, but you can't argue fact. Unless Greg changes his mind, and he's not likely to, it is a fact.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:41:30 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

The odd look of the New Olympians (with fae and human blood) is what leads me to believe the more animalistic Gargoyles of England and the Americas are decedents of Gargoyle-Fae relations...

Just my opinion.
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:38:57 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

HoE> They mostly all have human blood. The New Olympians are not their own species, but descendants of humans who mated with Children of Mab.
Greg Bishansky
"February is Black History Month. Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them because police officers call me 'Sir,'" -Stephen Colbert
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:29:59 pm EST from 75.56.245.4

My friends and I watched the episode "The New Olympians" last night, and we realized something amusing. If Taurus is descended from the Minotaur, then he might have a smidge of human blood in his veins. If the Gargoyles universe follows the Minotaur as being born because Poseidon made Minos's wife fall in love with the bull that Minos failed to sacrifice, but I doubt Greg would ever answer that question. ( ;

Of course, I imagine that there are probably a few inhabitants who have a small amount of human blood.
Harvester of Eyes - [Minstrel75 at gmail dot com]
"Snowshoes that bind me down. Just one more parasite in the surface layer. And I begin to get the feeling that I've been on this stage before and I'm the only player." -Ian Anderson
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:27:14 pm EST from 71.62.198.251

Yeah, Tina won't let her children watch them without her, so I'm thinking it might be a nice gift.

The Gargoyles TPB went back up to $19.95 at Amazon.com. Anyone who got a week or so ago for mad cheap, congrats!

No new Gargoyles for February. Let's hope for March! I changed my release dates to reflect the suggestions of the CR.
(The Gargoyles Pulse - updated Mondays)
Anthony Tini
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 4:44:39 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

she lives with me- my house is much saner than our parents' ;) not too worried about getting them back. she definitely pouted about the rest of season 2 not being available on DVD, cause the DVD's are so much better than the youtube.

The gift of gargoyles? hmm, wish my hubby would do that...;)
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 2:56:13 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

chris> That's good about your DVDs, as long as they are returned.

My girlfriend's 12 and 10 yr old kids are borrowing my Season 2 Vol 1 Box set currently. I need to dig out my VHS recordings of the rest of Season 2 episodes or point them in the direction of youtube to watch the remainder of the episodes. Once they get caught up, I have no doubt that my girl will be buying them the comics. Or maybe I'll be in charge of doing that for her. Haha.
(The Gargoyles Pulse - updated Mondays)
Anthony Tini
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 2:49:49 pm EST from 159.240.11.254

slow day, huh? size of the clan. Due to the dangerous lifestyle of the warriors, I believe it can be presumed that often mated pairs may die in battle even before their eggs hatch, keeping clan numbers relatively low. And it was the dark ages, disease and famine probably took its toll on gargoyles as well as the humans. It's been said often how Hudson's age was very formidable for those times. I wonder how often gargoyles would die before reaching a third breading season anyways...

My little sister has currently stolen my DVDs and is sharing them with her friends :):)
chris
why do we build castles in the sky?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 2:20:42 pm EST from 66.211.201.24

Tenth.
bluewyvern
"Attend the petty jealousies and angers that prey upon your heart."
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 8:33:33 am EST from 69.112.108.43

(9 or 10) Nineth or Tenth! Slow countdown isn't it.
Vinnie - [tpeano29 at hotmail dot com]
It's silly. It's a silly movie. There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?- George Lucas on Spider-Man 3
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:46:56 am EST from 69.54.209.28

Since the room is currently dead, I'll converse with myself, and carry over a topic from last week. (Kidding about the self-conversation... mostly)

Clan size: I once plotted out a family tree of a fictional clan, assuming gargoyles died approximately 2-3 generations after their final egg, and after it stabilized, the clan grew by two every generation. Sooo... According to that theory (which may be flawed, as I was doing it math instead of paying attention), the Wyvern clan had 33 breeding-age couples, meaning there was probably one generation of 9, one of 11, and one of 13. Then you factor in the underage 'goyles, which are presumably two pairs greater than the generation preceding them so 15 and 17, and the overage 'goyles (we'll assume only two generations) 7 and 5. Now add… 5 + 7 + 9 + 11 + 13 + 15 + 17 = 77 pairs. Then multiply that by two and get 154 gargoyles, not including beasts.

Now my concern is that I'm remembering incorrectly about the growth of the clan… I don't know. I'm not a very math-oriented person. If anyone cares to check, that'd be swell.

I should probably sleep.

Oh! PS- I <i>finally</i> got issue 7. Loved it. When I read the blurb, I was nervous about it, and then when I heard about the format, I got even more nervous, but then I read it, and I loved it. Also, I really think that… David Hedgecock's art is massively improved. I always kind of liked it, but I really think he's improved a lot, and he deserved a note. So there it is. 

Night.
Samuel - [AnglOfHellO at AOL dot com]
Noodles, anyone?
posted @ Mon, Feb 18, 2008 5:46:35 am EST from 68.34.84.220

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending February 25, 2008

Index : Hide Images