BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....

Subject: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:57 AM

...granted in our present civilization. And possibly mythical situations as well.

Possibly mythical beings and situations. What are some of these? On the one hand you've got all the religious stuff...which has already been beaten to death on 800 other threads, so that's NOT what I'm after here, okay?

No, I am after other stuff that's taken for granted, but that is seen as part of the sphere of quasi-scientific thought or common conventional notions of the past that are outside of religion altogether. Conventional notions that are highly questionable.

Here's the first one:

1. The traditional image of the "caveman", a being presumed to have recently abandoned the safety of "the trees", he now shambles around wearing a cruddy-looking, one-piece, animal skin toga which is ragged around the edges and comes down to about his knees. In one hand he carries a heavy wooden club. With it he bashes the woman of his choice and drags her off by her hair to "have his way with her". She is wearing, by the way, a similar cruddy-looking, one-piece, animal skin toga which is ragged around the edges and comes down to about her knees...or maybe a bit farther, to indicate femininity.

What silliness! These beings are apparently presumed to have been all over the place, laying down the foundations of what would become later...us.

Yeah, right. Tell me another one. LOL!!!

Here's a little cartoon of the mythical generic caveman.

Caveman?

Pathetic, isn't it? The chances of anything resembling that being seen wandering around 50,000 or 2 million years ago seem very slight to me. The chances of standard courtship involving clobbering a woman with a club and dragging her off by her hair seem even slighter, to say the least.

And yet the stereotype is repeated again and again, recycled in inane cartoons like the Flintstones....

I wonder how many people actually believe that stuff by now?

Okay, now here's another:

2. The mutinous sailors on Columbus ship, panicking at the thought of "sailing over the edge of the world"!

That's really a funny one! Sailors in Columbus day were well aware that the world was a globe. It had been known for a long time by sailors, as the Greeks and Romans also knew. What Columbus men were worried about was not falling off the edge...but running out of fresh water and food BEFORE reaching land. They were sailing across a vast expanse of unknown water with no certainty as to when they would make landfall, and that scared them. Sailors in those days tended not to stray too far from know coastlines, because they were afraid of being lost at sea in unknown waters. It was Washington Irving, in the 1800s, who created this myth about Columbus' men thinking the world was flat.

And then there's...

3. The ostrich that sticks its head under the sand to avoid seeing something it doesn't like. Enough said.

And...

4. The sex-crazed gorilla who siezes a blonde babe and rushes off into the forest with his screaming captive. A wonderfully dramatic image that was repeated in numerous lurid scenes in Victorian-era books, Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, and early movies, culminating in the ultimate example of King Kong. Has this EVER really happened??? Probably not. But it makes a great scene, doesn't it?

5. The "little" British ships taking on the mighty, towering galleons of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Not so. The British ships were, on average, about as large in tonnage as the Spanish ships (although they were outnumbered to some extent by the Armada, but certainly not to a decisive extent...as many of the ships in the Armada were not fighting ships, but almost helpless supply vessels). The largest single fighting ship involved in the campaign, as a matter of fact, was one of the English galleons. The English ships also generally mounted heavier, longer-range guns than their Spanish foes, and they were far handier sailing ships which could outmaneuver the clumsier Spanish galleons. The galleons had been designed to fight close-in boarding actions which would be decided by deck-to-deck, hand-to-hand fighting. The English knew this, and they used their superior maneuverability and absolutely refused to close in and fight boarding actions. They stood back and assailed the Spanish with their gunnery, to the utter frustration of the Spanish. By so doing, they slowly wore down the Spanish ships with a lot of cumulative damage, and finally struck a decisive blow by sending fireships down on the Spanish fleet at anchor and causing it to scatter. The next day they again used their distance gunnery to savage the scattered Spanish fleet, ganging up on isolated groups and destroying them piecemeal. Many Spanish ships were lost. Those that were't began their long and disastrous voyage home, up around the top of the British Isles and past the treacherous shores of Ireland where many more were lost.

*********

Now, some of the above is taken pretty seriously by a lot of people, while some, like the ostrich, is more whimsical. But they're all interesting as examples of popular myth, I think. Got any more?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM

Oh, Little Hawk, you tempt me, you fiend!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM

Calling Shatner an "actor" comes to mind.

King Canute yelling at the sea always struck me as improbable, as did the image of Euripides dripping bathwater and running down the street in his Eurekas. The Godiva legend is probably also hollow. Raleigh's muddy cape, likewise. Interesting -- ya gotta wonder who generates these silly legends in the first place, and why?

IN later years, a lot of complete hogwash has circulated the Internet posing as explanations for the meanings of some words traced back to the Middle Ages. Bogus and dishonorable posery. Oh, and to widen the scope slightly, the fabricated bullshit that gets circulated abotu political candidates--accusing Al Gore of claiming he invented the Internet, the SwiftBoat assholeries, the series of fraudulent scandals puffed up about the Clintons--sheer fabrication but it catches some deadwood imaginations like wildfire.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: MMario
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM

look at just about any movie, book or stage play and you will find them populated primarily by mythical stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM

It is tempting to mention George Bush and the American people trusting in his competency. However, "That's Africa, baby!"

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM

What about possums "playing possum" (pretending they are dead). Any truth to that one? Bobert? Seems to me that since the purpose of hunting a possum IS to kill it and cook it, that "playing possum" would not help the poor little guy to avoid the pot.

And then we have the groundhog thing about coming out and seeing his shadow, etc.... ;-) That, of course, is 100% true. It has to be! Otherwise Punxatawnie Phil and Blind River Slim and Shubenackadie Sam are just a bunch of charlatans, and that would be unthinkable!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:39 AM

I live just a few miles from Knut's ford named after a king who brought an end to a period of bloody fighting and whose reign was characterised by prosperity in which art and trade flourished.

The legend, if legend it is, says that he was surrounded by fawning coutiers who boasted of his power.

To illustrate how little power he had, he forbade the tide from coming in, and sat on the beach to defy it.

When faced with the wet feet he knew to be inevitable he is said to have said: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings."

Maybe a 'myth' for all times!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:44 AM

I actually had someone tell me today he saw Obama in an interview claim that he will replace the bible with the kORAN AT HIS INAUGuration (caught it that time) and it won't be long before the bible will be replaced in courts and schools. When I pointed out that he is a member of a Christian Church and went to Catholic schools, he got that deer in the headlights look. "Maybe it was a news report..."

I don't care who he votes for but get your facts straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

Ooh, ooh, I got one! "The happy housewife!"

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

There's the myth we were taught in school about how the civilized and god fearing Europeans brought civilization to the savage and godless Indians of north America.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:57 AM

All Americans know that Wyatt Earp was one of the purest, noblest, knights-in-shining armor in our history...

Jim Bowie's death at the Alamo elevated him to similar status. Had Bowie lived, and gotten away with some of his shenanigans, he would have been one of the biggest landowners in the country, based all on fraud and forgery.

Of course, no one really believes elephants are afraid of mice...
Did anybody see that episode of "Mythbusters"? Honest ta gosh, they pretty much proved that elephants will go out of their way to avoid mice. I think they were as surprised as anybody else.

As to possums: my mother's little brother found a "dead" possum, brought it in and dropped it on the woodbox by the stove. A little later it raised havoc in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:58 AM

There was a prog. on Beeb 4 on Wednesday called The Musuem of Curiosity when Brian Blessed insisted that the abominable snowman existed becuase he had met many people who had not only seen it but for whom it was a regular phenomenon. Apparantly, the Russian government funded a £25 million expediiton to Siberia after people complained that women and children were being adducted by bigfoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 11:01 AM

The legend of Godiva is found in the works of Roger of Wendover a monk of St Alban's Abbey and a chronicler of the 13th century.

He wrote that Godiva pleaded with her husband to relieve the heavy burden of taxes he had imposed on the citizens of Coventry.

Weary of her persistence, Leofric said he would grant her request if she would ride naked through the town.

Whatever the truth of this it is a recorded fact that, in the reign of Edward 1, no tolls were paid in Coventry except on horses!

Some myths are worth holding on to :)

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 11:27 AM

It weren't Euripedes with Eurekas, it were Archistotle. I doubt if Euripedes ever took a bath, the dirty bugger. The Vikings didn't come raping and pillaging, they alsways said please before chopping your arms and legs off, it was just a Saga tour.

There's the myth of the Munster cloak being acquired from shipwrecked Armadistas.

George Washington the brave and chivalrous- who just happened to have 50 Frenchmen scalped on the Ohio in the 1750s.

That king with the waves, wasn't he King Cnut the Dyslexic, a descendant of Ethylred the Unsteady?

Lemmings that jump over cliffs?

And of course the mythical age when milkmaids and ploughboys sang folk songs all the way to the wake.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 12:21 PM

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Bee
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM

Historical myths like the King Canute story are harder to refute than common or modern myths that can be easily refuted with a little research. Canute may have performed that dramatic act as a result of being exasperated by his courtiers puffery. Godiva may have performed that act of stubborn principle. We can't be sure.

But anyone who believes the ostrich nonsense can go watch ostriches or ask someone who has studied them. I doubt anyone still really believes the caveman stereotypes, or the oversexed gorilla myth - or if they do, they are truly ignorant people.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM

The mutinous sailors on Columbus ship, panicking at the thought of "sailing over the edge of the world"!

That's really a funny one! Sailors in Columbus day were well aware that the world was a globe……..

Please keep quiet about this for at least a couple of weeks. I've got a 15 minute musical sketch being performed by the Cubs and Brownies of the Grimsby Gang Show Junior Gang, each night through the first week of March, which hinges on the fact the sailors wanted to turn back for fear of falling off the edge of the world. I've even written a couple of songs based on this. Please don't tell me my time has been wasted.

It doesn't do to let facts get in the way of a good story.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM

It was Archimedes, actually. My fault.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 04:34 PM

The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Joybell
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 04:40 PM

We have lots of animal ones:
Where there's lizards -- you won't find snakes. Ha!
When black cockatoos fly over it's going to rain. Yeah! Right! So where do they fly to when it's dry?
Make a lot of noise in the bush to scare away snakes. Snakes are deaf (and almost blind.)
An injured snake doesn't die until sundown.
Mint keeps flies and mosquitos away. Ours love the mint plants.

Our possums (different from American ones) do "play possum". That is they freeze and stare past you if they are cornered. Many other wild animals do the same. Not exactly the same thing as falling over and waving their legs in the air, though.

Side-thread --Australian magpies have a strange habit of lying, trance-like, spread-eagle in the sun. They seem quite dead -- people sometimes pick them up. Weird.
Cheers Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 04:44 PM

I love the folks who go out walking in the woods at night alone when there is a crazed killer on the loose.

If they would only remember to take along the the wild west 6 shooter that never needs reloading.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 04:52 PM

Most of these are the stuff of jokes surely, that no one actually believes in.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:26 PM

The one about the Vikings not wearing horned helmets is classic. And it's true. They didn't. But I bet that 99% of the people in the world right now still believe that Vikings wore horned helmets...thanks to generations of movies and books depicting them in that manner.

Apparently the traditional garb the Pilgrims are usually pictured in in our books and movies is not very accurate either....and they would probably have burst out laughing if they could ever have seen how we portray them nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:29 PM

And all the cowboys were white.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:33 PM

Semen is beneficial for the skin and hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:39 PM

Say what???????

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM

Threaten an ostrich and, far from hiding its head in the sand, it'll kick the crap outta you! Dangerous birds when aroused.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:44 PM

The Aroused Ostrich. It sounds like a good name for a pub or rock band.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:50 PM

Yeah, Johnny Cash was farming ostriches at one time, and one of them kicked him in the stomach and nearly killed him. He was probably only saved from being disebowled by the large metal belt buckle he was wearing at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Janie
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:57 PM

LH, Ain't nothin' mythological about a possum playing dead.    I've had many a dog fooled by a possum.


From this site

Playing 'Possum'

Perhaps the most intriguing characteristic is the opossum's ability to play dead. When confronted by danger, it can either make a run for it, climb a nearby tree, stay and fight (which it rarely does), or feign death. In this case the opossum sinks to the ground while its eyes glaze over, bares its teeth, and lolls its tongue to the side, successfully simulating death. No amount of prodding, poking, or shaking will revive the animal from its catatonic state. Apparently the animal is incapable of any feeling, and does not flinch.

Opossums create such a convincing portrayal of death, including a putrid odor, that dogs and other predators will abandon them for livelier prey, as most predators will not eat carrion. Some time later, the survivor regains consciousness and continues slowly on its way. Enemies of the opossum are dogs, coyotes, bobcats, and raptors. The two enemies from which the deathlike trance will not save the opossum from are man and the automobile.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM

Cool! I am delighted to discover that at least one weird animal tale is true. The opossum is clearly onto a good thing there, except as regards dealing with human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Bert
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:06 PM

Archistotle LOL.

Actually Archimedes got most of his stuff right, whereas Aristotle set back the course of science for about 2000 years with his 'laws' of motion.

And where would we be if Archimedes hadn't invented the screw?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:09 PM

Damn straight! How the human race ever propagated itself before Archimedes was around is a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:21 PM

Well, when I think of mythical beings things like Chimera, the Basilisk, and The Honest Politician come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:23 PM

Not only 'possums, but hog-nosed snakes will "play dead." When I was a kid, we found a small one in our basement and it did just that. I was able to scoop it up with a shovel and take it outdoors. It lay quietly on the shovel while I carried it up the stairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM

I have always been dubious about the three-toed sloth and the molerat, not to meniton the roaring bandersnatch.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Janie
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 06:56 PM

The menitoning of roaring bandersnatches is definitely a modern myth!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: meself
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 07:04 PM

Someday they'll be sneering at us for ever believing Vikings DIDN'T wear horned helmets ...

Mark my words.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: gnu
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 07:05 PM

Oh, Amos, it's true. Ya never wanna get fetched up with one.... or her lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 07:12 PM

I KNOW I posted to this, regarding possums! Forever into the ether!
Yes, possums WILL play dead...but most of the ones I've seen have been hissing, spitting and baring teeth to avoid a cat carrier!

Well, there was the wee little one in our grape vine one summer....he was soooo cute! About the size of an 8 week old kitten and terrified of our dogs and cats. Then he grew up, moved into the garage rafters for a year...never saw him after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Bert
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 07:35 PM

AAAActually it's a 'frumious bandersnatch'

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:00 PM

I'm curious about the elephant thing. They really are scared of mice?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM

LH -

Haven't seen much recently about the fear of mice, but they reportedly are currently studying (with government funds) the confirmed dislike for bees to see if recorded "bee noises" can be used to keep elephants out of the cornpatch.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:26 PM

Molerat

Three-toed sloth

Bandersnatch

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: folk1e
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:38 PM

Threaten an ostrich and, far from hiding its head in the sand, it'll kick the crap outta you! Dangerous birds when aroused.      Don Firth
Very true and Emu's are just as bad ...... Remember Parky? (UK TV)

OK how about good old Robin Hood. He did exist but was a villain and eventually got made "a fellow of the king's bed chamber"!

Or William Wallace!(Bravehart) Yes he did exist ..... but was not one of "the good guys" of folklore!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Joe_F
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:12 PM

Some years ago, I read that there are people in Texas who belief that a gila monster has no anus, but uses all the waste of its digestion for the production of poison. The book in which I read this reproduced a photograph of a gila monster's anus for the enlightenment of Texans.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 10:06 PM

No, Vikings didn't have horns on their hats; they grew those horns.

You know, long sea voyages, no women on board. . . .

Don Firth

P. S. But then, there are other theories.   HONK!!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amergin
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 12:25 AM

Another mythical creature I have heard of but have yet to see.....a compassionate republican....

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 12:35 AM

JoeF---

I think that comes under the heading of "too much information" !! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 01:02 AM

I wonder if anyone's tried to get milk from a Milk Snake?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 02:14 AM

Folk Singers .... are neither Singers, nor Folk ....

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 03:24 AM

All medieval women wore pointy cone hats with floaty scarves and dresses cut down to here every day...

The henin - the pointy hat - was more often flower pot shaped. There are very few examples of steeple henins - the pointy ones - in paintings. Only the very wealthy would wear them and then probably only for special occasions. Of course, a special occasion would call for a painted record, so the pointy hat became imortalised. They were very popular in a region of France for a fairly short period of time - they are buggers to wear so only those who were rich enough to do nothing or didn't have to move faster than your average sloth had them.

The medieval period lasts for over 400 years and in that time, women's dresses remained fairly similar and very modest. Breasts didn't become exposed until much later. Even the Tudors never went so far as to have theirs on display... that came with George VI.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM

Isn't there a Gila monster's anus currently on display in the White House? And are there other types of bandersnatches than the frumious ones -- perhaps millipedate or even subterranean?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:50 AM

There is myth and then there are things that I have actually seen.

The nebulous globes of light that slowly pass through solid objects made me wonder if they were intelligently motivated but I simply do ot know.

The 3 inch 6 pointed flying snowflakes in Binghamton during June were in fact intelligent, that is if you consider specialized and unique aphids who spin electrostaticly charged silk flying machines to be intelligent.

Then there are the beings that only shamans see as well as those who injest the same alkaloids.

Here comes the trick question:
Are there existential beings with which we are unaware?
There are billions of them.
.........


btw, The only time a compassionate republican can be seen is when a compassionate republican looks in the mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:55 AM

A current event about a myth?

Queen Elizabeth 'sorry' for swan bite: But palace says it's a myth that she's responsible for all of them

The Associated Press
updated 7:50 p.m. CT, Fri., Feb. 22, 2008

LONDON - Elishia Stevenson wanted an apology when she was bitten by a swan. So she wrote to Queen Elizabeth II.

The 6-year-old girl from Cornwall, south west England, wrote to Buckingham Palace because her mother told her the queen owns all the swans in Britain. She decorated her letter with flowers and a picture of a swan with a sad face.

A lady-in-waiting responded, saying the queen was "sorry to hear about the swan."

Though the queen doesn't own every swan in Britain, she does own certain mute swans in the Thames. This tradition goes back to the 12th century, when roast swan was considered a delicious dish, and continues today with the annual "Swan Upping," a census of swans on the Thames.

David Pogson, a Buckingham Palace spokesman, said the idea the queen owns all the swans is a myth.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press

John

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:55 AM

"A swan can break a man's arm, you know."

(Oft-repeated quote from an Adrian Mole book. In the course of the story virtually every character that appears advises Adrian at some point that a swan can break a man's arm. Adrian, harassed daily by swans who live outside his riverside flat, becomes heartily sick of hearing this wretched cliche from everyone he meets, as well as becoming heartily sick of the damned swans! Eventually one of Adrian's friends actually DOES have his arm broken by a belligerent swan, proving that if people say something long enough it may indeed happen one day.)

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 02:55 AM

It's true, the Queen doesn't own all the swans - Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset "owns" a substantial amount.

The Swannery birds are wild, but habitually return to Dorset to nest, where they are inspected and new chicks ringed. Wild, unringed birds also visit, as do 'Royal' swans, those actually owned by her Maj.

Abbotsbury Swannery provides the swan feathers used as quills in ceremonial signings by the Palace.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: folk1e
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:11 PM

Isn't Shatner (the lesseer spotted) a mythical creature?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:33 PM

No, he isn't. A friend of mine sold him some "stuff" once in Toronto in the early 70's. I swear to God it's true.

It's his alter ego Captain Kirk that's mythical. Sadly. We could use a guy like Kirk. Can't you just see him in the Oval Office, leaning back in his chair casually with his boots propped up on the desk, and grinning knowingly at the female staff...

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Grab
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:09 PM

Is there a Lesser Shatner? I thought we only had the Greater Fatted Shatner. It's a tough old bird, admittedly, but it's self-basting once you get it in the oven.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:11 PM

Well, the old folks say that if you stick a pin in the Greater Fatted Shatner, you will find a sour and shriveled lesser Shatner within. I have never tried this, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:12 PM

No, because you don't have that much nerve... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Rowan
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 09:17 PM

Perhaps the most intriguing characteristic is the opossum's ability to play dead. When confronted by danger, it can either make a run for it, climb a nearby tree, stay and fight (which it rarely does), or feign death.

While the Oz ones can play dead, they can certainly fight! Another myth popular among biologists is that, before people came to Oz, the only mammals in Oz were marsupials and they were restricted to Oz (pace the American opossum) because they couldn't compete with or outfight placental mammals.

Try telling that one to the feral cats outside University House, in Melbourne when, every night, they compete with the possums and have to fight them over the garbage bins.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:02 AM

"I love the folks who go out walking in the woods at night alone when there is a crazed killer on the loose." Wesley


I have the opposite reaction, Wesley. All those horror stories where someone is in the house making his way closer and closer, room by room - why, why oh why doesn't the protagonist just leave the house?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:26 PM

Apparently the traditional garb the Pilgrims are usually pictured in in our books and movies is not very accurate either

???

If one assumes that the prominent "Dutch Master Painters" ca. 17th century painted what well-to-do patrons considered "fashionable," in the time of the Pilgrims or in the years preceding their isolation from polite society and changes in fashion, it is quite probable that the "steroeotypical" clothing commonly depicted was what the Puritans would have wished to wear, assuming that they could afford it and that anything but rags survived the first few months(?).

Check out a 1660 Vermeer for consideration.

In any rigid society, being a "proper suit" is demanded, even under conditions of adversity.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM

It was more the male attire that I had in mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: folk1e
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 07:39 PM

"No, he isn't. A friend of mine sold him some "stuff" once in Toronto in the early 70's. I swear to God it's true.".....LH


Stuff?? ...... You mean Grecian 2000? or Stuff (nudge nudge)?
Come on LH, you can't leave us in suspenders!

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:13 PM

The intriguing thought I keep entertaining is wondering whether we are seeing the same things. What if what I am looking at and assume that is what you too are watching is not so at all? This has happened to me at least twice- and I would never have known if the subject hadn't come up later.

How many things have I seen that you have not? How many things have *you* seen that *I* have not?

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM

Well, you know..."stuff"...(wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Selling or buying "stuff" was pretty common in Toronto in the early 70's amongst younger people. Probably still is, but I'm kind of out of touch with that scene now. I knew people back then who almost never seemed to talk about or think about anything else...LOL! (They were all males. I think women just aren't capable of being quite that stupid...at least not in that particular fashion, anyway.)

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 09:27 AM

Only our central vision is in full detail but that is only 3% of our total visual field.

When you see thngs only out the side of your eye you have no high defintion vision to work with so the brain fills in the gaps and makes up the rest. Driving at night is a good time to see this in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

Some Vikings did wear horned helmets apparently, but not to battle. The horned helmets were for ceremonial purposes.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhornedhelmet.html

I've heard the ostrich thing explained a few times. The don't bury their heads, but they do lower them. Note that they are a lot taller than lions. So with their heads up, they can see the lions from a good distance. So if they see a lion, they will duck down their heads, hopefully before the lion spots them.

If the lion does spot them and get close enough to spring, they will run first, but if cornered, they will kick at the lion with their huge clawed feet.

Some Greeks did prove mathematically that the world was a globe, but that does not mean that most people in the 1400's believed that was so. Sailors in particular were very superstitious, as some still are. It is possible that their ignorance and their wish to believe fairy tales might have overcome science. This is an affliction some people have today, especially in schoolboards in places like Kansas. On the other hand, I would think that anyone who signed on with Columbus would have been convinced that there was a good chance of finding the Indies on the voyage, else they would not have signed up.

I think that our common stereotype of cave men come from the Neanderthal findings in Europe. They did live in caves and wear animal skins. But they also had stone spear heads, knives and bone needles. So their clothing may have been at least as elaborate as portrayed on the "Flintstones" though I doubt that they wore ties as Fred did.

I have read that the sex starved Gorilla was a Victorian stand in for the African man. This opens up way more cans of worms than I am prepared to think about. But if you have seen the 1970's movie "Mandingo" you probably know what I am talking about.

I've read a few things about the Armada, and I am quite confident that the Spanish had much larger ships. That is because it was an invasion fleet with many many troop carriers. The English tactics of harass and evade also would have put a premium on smaller, faster ships. Of course all of this is rather moot because the Armada was defeated more by the weather than anything the English did.

Subject: RE: BS: Possibly mythical beings taken for....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:52 PM

Hey, Jack, the best book about the Armada, as far as I know, was written by Mattingly. It's called "The Armada". Check it out. The Spanish had a larger fleet than the English by a considerable margin...but more than half of that fleet was composed of noncombatant supply vessels which were useless for fighting the English Navy. The entire fleet of English ships which sailed against the Armada were capable fighting vessels. The odds were thus reasonably even.

In terms of tonnage the English fighting ships were pretty much comparable in general to the Spanish fighting ships, and the largest single galleon in the fight was an English one.

The Spanish galleons were built according to a different philosophy...they had higher "castles" at the bow and stern to permit more effective boarding actions, and they tended to mount larger numbers of short-range, small caliber, man-killing guns, again with close-in boarding actions in mind.

The English galleons adopted the opposite philosophy. They had lower bow and stern structures and mounted larger numbers of long range ship-killing guns. The intention of the English was to stand off at a distance, avoid the boarding actions, and sink the Spanish ships by pounding their hulls in.

The more streamlined, less top-heavy design of the English galleons resulted in ships that were not smaller in tonnage, but considerably handier and more maneuverable under sail...thus the English were able to stand off, avoid the boarding actions which the Spanish so desired to provoke, and gradually wear down the Armada with their long range guns....and this they slowly did, over several days of battle.

There were numerous occasions when Spanish galleons deliberately struck their sails (done to bring the ship to a halt) and sat there, trying to dare or shame the English into doing the "honorable" thing...close and fight it out on the decks! The Spanish must have been outraged at the English response...which was simply to sail past at a short distance, pound the hell out of the Spanish ship with their cannons, and then move on. A whole series of English ships would do this to one immobilized Spanish galleon. They simply refused to do what the Spanish wanted and close for a hand to hand fight on the decks.

This was wise of the English, because the Spanish ships were loaded with great numbers of highly experienced soldiers from Europe's most effective land army at the time. To fight boarding actions would have given the Spanish the opportunity to do what they did best, and the English knew that.

The Duke of Medina Sidonia, the Spanish commander, had another problem to deal with. He took the Armada to English waters for one purpose: to load the huge Spanish Army that was in northern Europe (fighting the Dutch) aboard his ships and land it in England.

He was completely unable to do that, however, because the Dutch had blocked that Spanish army from reaching the coast!!! They could not make contact with the Armada at all.

Therefore, the Armada was sent on a fool's errand, doomed to failure. Their only chance of a victory was to actually defeat and destroy the English Navy at sea...and this they were utterly unable to do, because the English outmaneuvered them at every turn with ships that were not "smaller", but ships that were more maneuverable and better handled than the topheavy Spanish galleons.

The whole thing was a fiasco. This is not to criticize the Spanish commander. He handled things about as well as he could have been expected to, considering that he had been asked to do the impossible: pick up an army which could not meet him at the coast!

The only thing that could have saved it for the Spanish would have been if the English fleet had done the honorable thing the Spanish expected and closed in for deck-to-deck fighting. That the English refused to do. They outsmarted the Spanish by refusing the old, traditional tactics and opting for new ones.

The weather destroyed much of the Armada...yes...but that was some time AFTER the English had already defeated them. They were on their long and miserable way up around Scotland, past Ireland, and back to Spain, having accomplished nothing useful whatsoever for all their desperate (and brave) efforts.

Who should one blame for the defeat of the Armada? The King of Spain. It was his mistake to send his fleet on a fool's mission to pick up an army that could not even meet that fleet at the coast.