THE PACK Message Boards

One premise my father frequently brought up is the importance of not reducing philosophy to nominalism. (Nominalism is the study of words and their meaning.) Philosophy explores the very substance of existance itself, whereas nominalism is merely debating how to interpret a dictionary. Worlds apart, though the paths of the two often cross paths, because of the neccessity of words to convey the ideas generated by philosophy.

That said, I do have to offer my thoughts on the nominalist perspective. Language is a presumed consensus--that is, we all try to agree on a common, shared dictionary. But, we also each carry around a personal dictionary (metaphorically, anyway, unless you've uploaded one into your PDA.) It sounds trite to say that different words mean different things to different people, but it's none-the-less true. We each have different subtle connotations. For example, most normal people out there associate the idea of lycanthropy and werewolves as something horrific that one would wish to avoid at all costs. To the majority of us here, however, it symbolizes something quite different.

The reason furries are at each others' throats and any unfortunate bystander about what being a furry even means is that each person's internalized dictionary is different, and subtle differences can carry great significance--just ask the Shi'ites and Sunnis.

Add to that the premise that some of us also reinvent uses of existing words to fill ideas that are otherwise unnamed. For example, the term "continuity" to me describes a property of the universe in which laws of science and familiar events reliably occur. "Crossover" is the premise of travelling from one realm of existance to another, continuity be darned. These are off-label uses of the words, since "continuity" officially just means not self-contradicting, and "crossover" means various other ideas, ranging from what DNA does during meiosis to a marketing term to avoid calling a new car a station wagon. It should be noted that I met someone else who quite independently of me came up with the same use of the word "crossover."

Then, there's people like George W. Bush, who will confabulate new terms on the fly, or who will apply the wrong term to describe a particular thing. I have to do a lot of mental error-correcting when interviewing patients in the ER, as I often work with fairly uneducated people who try to use terms without really knowing what they mean. Most of you probably do some error-correcting, too, without thinking much about it--hearing double negatives and knowing the person meant to say something but technically said the exact opposite,for example.

Oh, brother
Every time i come on this thread, all i see is a bunch of squabbling. Frankly, isn't the whole argument about what a werewolf is and is not just a difference of opinion? I don't like using the term "Lyncanthrope" when referring to werewolves, mostly because it's used as the name under which diseases are classified, and i see it as an insult to them, but that's just my opinion. A lot of people will disagree with me, and I'm fine with that. However, isn't this site suppose to be about debate? Some of the things I've read sound more like insults or beings ignoring what other beings are saying. Or is that just my opinion?
(And Vuldari has a good point about all the misinterpretations of words, but i still don't appreciate him insulting us with that " a being who believes themselves to be a werewolf mentally has a psychopathic disorder" thing. Then again, you didn't tell him YOU, used to be one of those, did you?)
No i didn't. because right now, i have no clue what i am.

I offer WerewolfKeeper3's opinion of the word "lycanthrope" to illustrate my point. To him, it conjures up images of diseases and mental illness. To me, the word "werewolf" strikes me as quick to invoke gore movies and body parts flying, while "lycanthrope" has a more neutral, sciency sound. But, I'm no more right or wrong than WerewolfKeeper3, as neither of us own the language; we're just licensing it for use in each of our brains.

Thank you Mr. Gardener.
(He's just glad you're taking him seriously.)
And he's right:

we're just licensing it for use in each of our brains.

I like the way he out that too.

Look everyone.

This does not have to be vindictive.

It does not have to get personal.

Nor does it require that we become reactionary.

Words vary in how thoroughly they are defined. From dictionary to dictionary (I prefer the OED for English), but sometimes are more thoroughly examined in specialized works discussing language. Language is also, in the cases of the ones we use daily, a living thing. Being a living thing makes it also a fluid and dynamic thing. Think words never change ? For example examine the meaniong of the word 'gay' now versus a century ago. It should also be noted that even as old words acquire new meanings, new words are constantly joining the lexicon. Further, it must also be noted that the establishment of the meanings of words while belonging to the greater society at large, belongs also to the persons and groups for whom they are of more critical interest and may sometimes deserve to be weighted accordingly. The study of words and language is unquestionably an honorable and scholarly pursuit for those inclined to the studious effort required.

When we are engaging in the utilization of words with a huge body of variable definition, things can become quite murky. Words involving mythology which have also been redefined routinely to meet the needs of storytelling in both literature and film may have a set of conventions which have varied over time and in the media of usage. This only makes things murkier. However there is a solution for those prepared to deal with this in a more exhaustive sense.

One is to work hard to create a set of definitions which seek to encompass the various interpretations of such words. The better dictionaries do this routinely. But even so, if one is well read or an expert in a field, one can still find gaps in such. Such definitions should contain along with the footnotes references to the sources of these various usages and some even contain qoutes of such usages.

But beyond that, we come to personal and non-dictionary definitions for malleable words from the language. That is what all the other words are for. If we routinely wish to have a specific meaning to a word involving a variety of accepted definitions, then we should start by specifying in particular what we mean by such and refer back to that in subsequent usages. In these days of acronyms and hot links, this is easy on the inernet.

In the case of the term werewolf, we do have a word that carries the burden and baggage of ages of use under a variety of cultures and media. In this case we need for reference purposes to at least consider the necessity to stipulate the details of the particular definition and usage which we shall be relying upon. This serves the purpose of clarifying for the sake of discussion what we are in fact trying to address. We should however also accept that folks may argue in good conscience that a given definition may be too narrow or inappropriate for the discussion at hand.

It does behoove us however, regardless of our position, to be polite and kind in our discussions. Vilifying one another only tempts us to ignite the fires of flaming, and while that may indulge our emotions, it serves little other purpose.

Scott: I cannot see how philosophy and nominalism can help to be anything except inextricably intertwined. The study of words and their meanings is neither of these terms however. That word is Etymology and it is a very worthy pursuit. It helps to inform us about our language and gives us greater facility in its usage.

All I want is to be able to share an idea or an opinion without having to spend the following week explaining what I meant.

You confuse each other just as much as you are confused by the things that I say.

I am just more stubborn than most about knowing that others understood my messages, and what I was actually trying to say.
...which it seems so often that many don't, and I recognise indistinct vocabulary as one of the most common roadblocks there.

Sometimes is is not appropriate to leave a thing, "open to interpretation". Sometimes a Rock is just a Rock. When you mean a solid chunk of minerals taken from the ground, it is not helpful to the conversation if one of the people you are talking to is instead thinking of a rock-like molded, hollow plastic ball, when your conversation is about geology.



Leading all of this back to the topic of this thread:


... how exactly are any of us supposed to answer the question, "What would a werewolf think of Therians", if everyone who answers is answering based on different interpretations of "Therian" and "WereWolf"?

We are not even answering the same question.

By some definitions, a werewolf and a therian are the same thing, in which case the question does not even make sense.

If you want me to answer based on every combination of definitions I know of both terms, I will need an entire thread just to answer, because my answer will be slightly different in each and every case, and each scenario will have multiple most-likely possible outcomes to be explained.


If you want a straight answer from me, all of you are going to have to learn how to be clear and specific...or what's the point

Vuldari: If you want to start more serious discussions with specific ideas of limited context and narrow discussion, you need to do so with a set of stipulations of such at the very beginning. Also, remember that this is a wide open forum and not a professional one. The ages, experience, languages and education levels vary considerably. Forums such as this are easily subject to topic drift and once a discussion gets long enough with arguments going around in endless circles, it can be wearying to attempt to trudge through all the posts to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, things here ARE very much subjects of opinion. This is mythology and the creative arts. It is most definitely NOT rocket science.

If as you state, none, I say NONE of us can understand you, is it possible that you cannot be understood ?

Vuldari said:

Leading all of this back to the topic of this thread:


... how exactly are any of us supposed to answer the question, "What would a werewolf think of Therians", if everyone who answers is answering based on different interpretations of "Therian" and "WereWolf"?

We are not even answering the same question.

By some definitions, a werewolf and a therian are the same thing, in which case the question does not even make sense.

Some questions do not entirely make sense in all contexts. Still with all the players possible in the obvious context of such a question above, the discussion DOES IN FACT HAVE TO PLOW THROUGH A SOMEWHAT NEBULOUS CLOUD OF THOUGHT PROCESSES. If one is not prepared to accept that, then one is wasting one's time in the discussion. One of the problems of certain questions is that they ARE BROADER on careful consideration than we might prefer to deal with if we wish only a perfunctory discussion.

Garouda: excellent work, as I appearantly have been myself making one of the aforementioned blunders, about misusing terms. I misunderstood what nominalism really was, because I just assumed my father was using the word to mean etymology. (I have to avoid a second fallicy, a simple spelling error to say by mistake that we're instead talking about bugs.)

My comments were not intended as a criticism of you so much as a commentary about the direction this topic seems to have gone. We've gotten so far from what we were talking about that we're now talking about how to talk.

No, we understand you Vuldari. We just don't agree with you. Just because we aren't kissing your a** and buying into anything that you pull out of it doesn't mean we don't understand you.

So far you're the only one here that's confused me. First you compared l33tspeak to misuse of fictional terminology, now you're comparing a rock to a therian.

If you want to know what we're talking about, you should actually read other people's posts once in a while. I'll say it again: if you're too dumb, lazy or selfish to think or care about what anyone else is saying, that's your problem and your problem alone.

Thank you garouda.

If everyone would at least acknowledge that I am trying to do something constructive here, put what I am saying to some serious thought, (whether you agree with me or not), and not behave like I am saying all of this just to make them angry, it would make me very happy.

Thank you for taking such a thoughtful, impartial look at my argument, and sharing your insigt on the matter.


Perhaps you are right. Maybe I am trying to communicate concepts that don't have terms we know to properly identify them yet.

...but when I am stubborn enough to just keep talking, usually someone eventually catches on.

Based on your post before my last, I think you are the first person here to fully grasp what I was TRYING to say. You actually understood me.


I guess I can only hope everyone else understands your words better than they did mine.






... IMHO, I still think the question is too hard to answer without being more distinct and clear about which definitions of each term we are using though.

Can we at least agree about that?

Terastas wrote:No, we understand you Vuldari. We just don't agree with you. Just because we aren't kissing your a** and buying into anything that you pull out of it doesn't mean we don't understand you.

So far you're the only one here that's confused me. First you compared l33tspeak to misuse of fictional terminology, now you're comparing a rock to a therian.

If you want to know what we're talking about, you should actually read other people's posts once in a while. I'll say it again: if you're too dumb, lazy or selfish to think or care about what anyone else is saying, that's your problem and your problem alone.

What is your problem?

I never mentioned 733t speak, or used any such terms, I never asked anyone to 'kiss my @**' by any phrasing or suggestion, and I would not bother asking anyone else to use clearer language if I didn't care what anyone else was saying.

How would I even notice if people were using terms in ways I understood to not be accurate, if I wasn't reading every message carefully?

How often have I interrupted a conversation to clarify a perceived miscommunication between one message and the next? ...for example, saying, " ... I think randompostrerguy meant..." .


I am all ABOUT understanding and comprehension. Trying to understand science, and people, and emotions, and instinct and philosophy is pretty much all that I do.

I am astounded that you would ever get the impression from me that I ever "don't care".

I just wish you would take my ramblings a little more seriously. I'm not one to talk just to hear the sound of my own voice. I always have a reason.

...all I ask for is some sign that you comprehend what I am saying. ...and saying "I understand", followed by complaints about things I never even said...all with angry undertones, does not send that message.

Garouda and Scott Gardener do not agree with me, but at least they responded relevantly. Thank you, both of you, for that.
All I wanted was comprehension.

My understanding of this issue.

What Vuldari wants: Clear terms that everyone can agree on their meanings so when they are used in discussion we know exactly what they are talking about.

A lofty goal, unfortunatly as you can see that's not going to happen in this context when refering to something that to each individual has a different exact definition. which is what I am trying to say.
With my magic vs science description. I wouldn' t call the scientific version a werewolf, but it still fits the dictionary definition so someone else might.

On fact its the same with any fictional or fantastic thing.

dragons for example. We can call all sorts of things dragons, and we have terms for specific types (western, eastern, wivern, ect...) I imagine this is what you were aiming for? specific terms for the variations?
Unfortunatly there are simply too many variations for a werewolf and just about anyone could shift this and that trait around and call it just about anything they want and still be seen as a werewolf by somebody or called by a different terms. and just like the dragon one you will even have people who will argue that a Wyvern is not a dragon, and point out that the eastern ones are Loong which are more god like than dragon like and aside from being big and scaley with fantastic powers have nothing in common. Which is why the dictionary effectivly just says a big scaley fantastic creature.

Here is what happens with these things when it comes to definition.
(Lowest common denominator).

I surely wish these forums allowed users the use of HTML.

Then starting posts could contain all the definitions necessary to limit discussions and help prevent ( under ideal circumstances ) excessive topic drift. These definitions could have HTML anchor tags for reference purposes, which to wit, could be linked back to whenever necessary.

Furthermore, if new definitions are required or specified in later posts, that information could be added ( edited ) into the initial post to make it a summary reference for the continuing discussion with new anchor tags as well.

It is after all much easier to pop over to the first post to get the basic information, rather than to hunt all through a discussion for ideas to which agreement has been reached which can thereafter be considered stipulations for the discussion.

Edit:

Sometimes the most important event in a discussion, is the correct and careful formulation of the question that initializes it.

Vuldari wrote:I never mentioned 733t speak, or used any such terms,

Vuldari wrote:When people here use really horrible grammar, fail to use proper punctuation, horribly misspell words so bad that you don't even know what they were trying to say, or whatever ... don't you want those people to clean up their act and communicate properly?

I'm not questioning whether you care or not Vuldari, but I think you care about all the wrong things. Instead of having an active discussion, you seem absolutely convinced that your own arguments and definitions are flawless and take everything from the slightest critique to direct opposition as some kind of act of maliciousness against yourself and the concept of werewolves.

It's not just this one thread that concerns me. I didn't have any problem with you until you suddenly posted these two gems, one right after the other:
Werewolves...Pitiful? *rant*
Alternative Shapeshifters

After that came the furious typing, the double-posting, the insults, the egoism, and indirect referrals to yourself as the final authority.

I signed up at this message board two years and six months ago (back when it was called Devoured), and even though you signed up just a month later, this is the first time I have ever seen someone even slightly insinuate that they were the final authority. Two years of peace and understanding, and then straight out of nowhere, this.

You want me to take your ramblings more seriously? When have I not? I don't know if you've changed or it just took this long for your true self to come out, but either way, I won't stand for it. I don't like where you're taking this, but I'm not going to just pretend there isn't a problem and hope it goes away on it's own.

I didn't just randomly decide to start flaming Vuldari. He acted, and now I'm responding. I've seen what this kind of behavior from a senior member can do to a message board, and I am not going to sit back and watch the same thing happen here.

The Pack is not your own personal ranting space. And in case you ever forget that again, don't worry, I'll always be here to remind you.

I would say it higly depends on the nature of this therian. Fanatic ones probaply are considered more like a threat but commonly... I think werewolves would understand their desire. Werewolves have toughed the freedom that therians only dream about.

Terastas wrote:I'm not questioning whether you care or not Vuldari, but I think you care about all the wrong things. Instead of having an active discussion, you seem absolutely convinced that your own arguments and definitions are flawless and take everything from the slightest critique to direct opposition as some kind of act of maliciousness against yourself and the concept of werewolves.

That has never been the case. However, you and several others repeatedly react to my messages as if it were, and so far, no matter how often I re-clarify, you have not noticed that you have been misreading me yet.

I want everyone here to be aware of the same history behind the subject that we are all trying to have constructive discussions about, because I think if we all know where we are starting from, we will all better understand where it is we are going with it.

Whether or not you have any desire to pursue or follow the traditional concepts behind the subject, as it was first conceived and defined, I think it would be extremely helpful for everyone to know just what it is they are basing their alternative interpretations off of, or what exactly it is they are referencing as the namesake for the alternative concept they are conceiving themselves.



I don't necessarily want MY ideas to be used as the primary starting concept, but the TRUTH, whatever that may be.

I present my ideas as what I currently know to be the TRUTH, based on the research I have performed myself, and the cumulation of all of the ideas that have been presented to me. If it is revealed to me that my knowledge of the history of the concept is flawed, or incomplete, I welcome genuine contest to the facts I present if they are confronted with provided information and facts, of traceable and reputable origin, that disprove my facts, or supplement them with information previously overlooked.

If my answer is wrong, and another answer right, then obviously I would want the right answer to be used, and my own facts recalculated to compensate.

However, I rarely receive genuine contest to the validity of my information, but instead, just bitter resistance to giving recognition to facts that are found to be, undesirable. ...or, in some cases, some people just don't like being told they are mistaken, or have been misinformed.

I am resistant to accepting information provided by sects of Pop-Culture, because ...honestly... Pop-Culture is driven primarily by mindless sheep who believe anything they are told if it is a thing that appears appealing to them the way it is presented, or could be used to their advantage somehow, regardless of whether it is true or not. ...which it frequently isn't.


Unfortunately, I see this website saturated with much of the same Popular Misinformation that the Furry, Therian and Otherkin subcultures are drowning in. ...but whenever I question someone about the validity of their position, instead of providing a reasonable explanation for how and why they came to believe that to be true, they just snap at me and accuse me of repressing their creativity, when it is not their 'IDEAS' that I am questioning at all, but the information that they are using as their 'FACTS'.


Basically, it is obvious to me that alot of people here don't really know what they are talking about, which is not surprising considering that these things are not really covered in standard education, so all I want to do is encourage everyone to work together and get their facts straight before continuing.




If you've done your homework and For Example; know what the difference between an old German Werewulf and a Wendigo is, and have a pretty good idea of how and when all of the various legends of shapeshifting beasts began, and how many of them began to blend together in the telling of their stories as different cultures began to share their legends with each other, how many different names they used to be known by and how they varied from each other, how most of them eventually began to be known generally by the German name 'Werewulf/WereWolf', how people like Lon Chaney Jr. and John Landis altered the general publics common interpretation of the creature, and how net-culture radicals interpretations of a shapeshifing Wolf creature varies from all of the historical origins of the concept, as well as the few ways they have remained the same...

...then you can truly claim to "KNOW" what a Werewolf is.


I don't know all of this information yet, nor have I ever claimed to, (regardless of how some of you insist that I have), but all of us combined I think know most of it...or we would if we could combine all of our KNOWLEDGE, (not just opinions), of the characters history into a unified Fact base...and if we could have such a well defined history to reference to, we would all understand each others perspectives alot better, and I think all of our discussions would become a great deal more productive, with alot less confusion.

If we could actually revive the old, forgotten legends that inspired the stories we already know, and see where these ideas and concepts came from, I think we might find a whole world of untapped ideas that many of us might not realize someone has already thought of, that were abandoned and forgotten prematurely. All of these things have just been lumped together into an incomprehensible, undefinable mass...but within that mass are hundreds of unique and distinct concepts, many of which used to have, and/or deserve their own names.

The genre of "Werewolf" is not really just one story at all, but THOUSANDS, and now that we are all ready and eager to explore the limits of the concept, I think it will be good to start to be more specific again. Are we really all talking about Werewulvs after all? ...is it really appropriate or constructive to continue to call all of these very unique and distinct concepts and entities by the same name?

Is everything that is identified as a Werewolf, really a Werewolf?

Is everyone who refers to themself, or is referred to as a Therian, really a Therian?



We call Koalas "Bears", even though we know they are not Bears, simply because they remind us of Bears...but in the end, though we may refer to them that way, all who are involved with them call them "Koala Bears" in full knowledges and understanding that they are NOT Bears, and do not treat them as if they are. If you ask a Koala expert if a Koala is a Bear, they will confidently say "NO", but not consider this fact any kind of detraction from the value or significance of the creature in question.


Likewise, I think there are cases in which one may refer to an entity as a "Werewolf", because of numerous similarities it may have with the creature that goes by that name, (Like a Sea Horse or a Komodo Dragon), but when asked if that person or creature is the same being as the Werewulf, the answer would plainly be "NO". It is a thing that is different enough to deserve and need it's own distinction.

A Black Bear is an "Ursine", and a Koala Bear is an "Phascolarctidae".

Terastas wrote:It's not just this one thread that concerns me. I didn't have any problem with you until you suddenly posted these two gems, one right after the other:
Werewolves...Pitiful? *rant*
Alternative Shapeshifters

After that came the furious typing, the double-posting, the insults, the egoism, and indirect referrals to yourself as the final authority.

I signed up at this message board two years and six months ago (back when it was called Devoured), and even though you signed up just a month later, this is the first time I have ever seen someone even slightly insinuate that they were the final authority. Two years of peace and understanding, and then straight out of nowhere, this.

Out of nowhere? This is far from the first time that I have stood up as "Vuldari vs. The World", and it won't be the last either.

And I am NOT, nor have I ever claimed to be an authority. Quite the opposite actually. I absolutely REFUSE to accept any title of "Administrator" or "Moderator" on this, or any forum, because the motivations behind any claim or suggestion I make is always to encourage Comprehension of the subject at hand, and that is nearly impossible if no one is able or allowed to ask "WHY" I am saying what I am saying. Anything I say must be debatable.

I have never claimed otherwise, but HAVE stated on multiple occasions that I want people to challenge me whenever anything I am saying is in doubt.

Terastas wrote:You want me to take your ramblings more seriously? When have I not? I don't know if you've changed or it just took this long for your true self to come out, but either way, I won't stand for it. I don't like where you're taking this, but I'm not going to just pretend there isn't a problem and hope it goes away on it's own.

I don't think I am taking this where you THINK I am taking this. I think you are misunderstanding me quite a bit, and are getting angry at me for things I am not guilty of.

...but if I am, I would not want you to pretend a problem doesn't exist, if there was one.

That is the very same reason why I started this debate. ...because I see a problem, and many of you are claiming it is not there, or think it is not worth the trouble to try to mend it, so I am trying to make it as clear as I can that there really IS an issue here, and that there is benefit in it for all of us to do something about it.

Terastas wrote:I didn't just randomly decide to start flaming Vuldari. He acted, and now I'm responding.

I see and respect what you are doing. Unfortunately, I fear that you came to a premature conclusion about what it is I have actually been suggesting, and mistook the dictionary in my hand for a brick I intended to use to smash other pack members ideas into submission with.

I am not trying to eliminate ideas.

I just want to more clearly categorize them.

Terastas wrote:I've seen what this kind of behavior from a senior member can do to a message board, and I am not going to sit back and watch the same thing happen here.

So have I ... and I am well aware of the magnitude of my own personal ego. I don't trust myself in a role of true-authority...as I know I am both capable and likely of being responsible for just such an outcome as you are suggesting. ...but I recognise that fault in myself, and so have willfully forbid myself from accepting such positions until I can prove to myself that I can handle it...which I am yet to do.

Terastas wrote:The Pack is not your own personal ranting space. And in case you ever forget that again, don't worry, I'll always be here to remind you.

Good to know.

The tranquilizer-darts and the gun are on the shelf to the left in case you need them.

So...now that all of that is finally behind us...








Dreamer, you started this thread, so, could you give me a little insight and direction on what you had in mind when you asked the question?



What kind of Werewolf, and what variety of Therians are we talking about here?

Vuldari wrote:Unfortunately, I see this website saturated with much of the same Popular Misinformation that the Furry, Therian and Otherkin subcultures are drowning in.

And what, exactly, would that be?

Set wrote:

Vuldari wrote:Unfortunately, I see this website saturated with much of the same Popular Misinformation that the Furry, Therian and Otherkin subcultures are drowning in.

And what, exactly, would that be?[/size]

...nuh uh...

I'm not biting your hook. This trainwreck of a topic drift has gone on long enough. You have enough fuel in your own mind to try to burn me at the stake as it is.

...besides...you would probably take some of it personally, and turn this into a flame war and a personal vendetta against me.


Just don't believe everything you are told ... and know the difference between fact and creative interpretation. Even fiction/myth has facts ... who came up with it ... what was it ... when ... and why ...

I recommend taking the trouble to question everything that is presented to you, if only in your own mind, and learn to make educated guesses about what is likely, and unlikely to be true. ...and then try to find out for certain, if it is important enough to you to be worth the trouble.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The subject is "What would Werewolves think of Therians?"



[ I just don't know how to answer the question without more clarity though.

First off, are these Cursed Monster Werewolves who are forced to change, People with mystical spiritual powers that link them to the wild wold spirit that allows them to change, Voodoo/Witchcraft using metamorphs, just some people with the inexplicable ability to shapeshift into wolves, or do these werewolves not even shift at all? (...and so on and so forth...)

Each scenario would create people with drastically different perspectives and attitudes that would react significanlty differently when faced with people who potentially desire to claim kinship with them, or are claimed to by others. (Which I assume is the factor that inspired this question in the first place)

Secondly... I don't even want to try to make a list of different possible interpretations of Therians, because if I happen to name any that someone does not find flattering towards those who call themselves so, or are not compatible with someones personal belief system, some of you will slit my throat, drink my blood and hang my hide out to dry.

However, what exactly you mean by a "Therian", in the context of this subject, would also obviously effect how the werewolves would react to the people in question.

You tell me what interpretations are appropriate for me to use for this topic. I'm done being hated for being honest about my opinion and perspective. ]

No one hates you for your Opinion.
Its how you present your opinion that is getting under these people's skin.

Its one thing to say, "this is how I interprit it"
its another to say, "this is the truth and that's that"

if you had said your piece and someone else said, "well to me its this" and you hadn't come back and basically said, "well no it isn't its this" then no one would have blinked twice in your direction.

Opinions are opinions not facts, and despite what ever research you may have done, it has no effect on how others have concluded themselves in this arena given their own experiences clearly.

So just dropping the idea of being right 100% would be a start.

Everyone is intitlted to their own opinion. Someone disagreeing with your view and having a different one is not a personal attack on you or your views. Its just a different view from your own and thats that.

I do not hate...
I just do not enjoy seeing people fighting...
... ... ...
You can never create tolerance if you never let people work things out in their head.

I do not think Vuldari was ever trying to be offensive...
But different people have different perceptions...
Both sides of the arguement need to figure things out in their head. Instead of being cruel you need to accept that other people have different perceptions, regardless of which side of the arguement you are on...

You can NOT ALWAYS replace a word whenever people start defining it in a different way but sometimes you have to in order to keep the peace...

Vuldari maybe you could send a letter to Webster and get them to put the traditional meanings in the dictionary...
There is always room for definition number two but your perception will never be lost...

WerewolfKeeper3 wrote:Thank you Mr. Gardener.

That sounds as if he mowed your lawn.

Rhuen wrote:No one hates you for your Opinion.
Its how you present your opinion that is getting under these people's skin.

Its one thing to say, "this is how I interprit it"
its another to say, "this is the truth and that's that"

if you had said your piece and someone else said, "well to me its this" and you hadn't come back and basically said, "well no it isn't its this" then no one would have blinked twice in your direction.

Opinions are opinions not facts, and despite what ever research you may have done, it has no effect on how others have concluded themselves in this arena given their own experiences clearly.

So just dropping the idea of being right 100% would be a start.

Everyone is intitlted to their own opinion. Someone disagreeing with your view and having a different one is not a personal attack on you or your views. Its just a different view from your own and thats that.

What you want something to be is an "opinion".

But what someone in the past said something was is a "FACT". If a book from 1753 said one thing...the contents of that book and what it said are not open to interpretation. It says what is says, and it doesn't what it doesn't. That is how that legend/story as told by that person in that book went.

If the legend of the South Ireland Wolf-Beast of bastion (I made that up) describes the creature a certain way, and has been told that way for 300 years, it is a "FACT" that this is what the legend of the South Irish Bastion Wolf Beast was.

It is stories like that which were the inspiration for the genre we genre we are now involved with. Those are the "FACTS" which I think are being ignored, or carelessly re-written.

"I think Werewolves are much more interesting when they are like this" is an Opinion.

...but what kinds of stories were told most often in old Germany back when "Werwulf" first became a household word is not something that you can just make up for yourself. They told the stories that they told. Many of them have been written down, just as they were originally conceived. Are you really saying that it is NOT a fact that the texts taken from 'Deutchlands' archives of classical literature are an accurate, and confirmable representation of the stories they actually told?


Enough of this. Is anyone going to post something on topic, or is this just "Bash Vuldari" time now?

...maybe a moderator should separate this debate out of the topic into it's own thread, and then lock it if no one has anything more constructive to say that how much I annoyed them.

cumulusprotagonist wrote:Vuldari maybe you could send a letter to Webster and get them to put the traditional meanings in the dictionary...
There is always room for definition number two but your perception will never be lost...

The Dictionaries that I use DO.

There is always.

The dictionary wrote:1. (noun) *One definition that is probably the most commonly used*

2. (noun) *Another similar, but slightly more specific definition*

3. (adjective) *A completely different use of the word with only a vague connection to it's primary meanings*

4. (...) *possibly some more definitions*

- - * Plus, some insight which covers which language and word (often Latin) the word originated from, when it was first known to be used, and in some cases, who is most famously known for using it.*

I recommend picking up an Unabridged Dictionary if it is ever within your means. (they can be expensive). They can teach you alot of fascinating things.


Encyclopedias are even better, but even I don't own my own set. Those can cost a small fortune...especially for really GOOD ones. Libraries are good for that. They let you read them for free.

Vuldari wrote:Encyclopedias are even better, but even I don't own my own set.

I do.

And I think you're being paranoid now. I was geniunely curious as to what you were referring to, because I can't recall a single instance of these "popular falsehoods" you keep ranting about.