Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[heatherrae]

Furthermore, what is truly 15th century thinking is to ridicule people who search for empirical evidence to explain these eyewitness accounts. Are we all to stick our heads in the sand and say nothing exists that we haven't seen yet?

There are thousands upon thousands of undiscovered species in the world.

 

[layinback]

Furthermore, what is truly 15th century thinking is to ridicule people who search for empirical evidence to explain these eyewitness accounts. Are we all to stick our heads in the sand and say nothing exists that we haven't seen yet?

There are thousands upon thousands of undiscovered species in the world.

as stated earlier, no correlation lawyers and high IQ's however direct correlation with personality type that gotta be right. lol.

 

[needtogetaas]

what about pussy any one ever seen one or is that just a myth to.

 

[layinback]

what about pussy any one ever seen one or is that just a myth to.

it only becomes a "myth" after the wedding cake.

 

[foreigngirl]

I don't think one single thing you have said has flown over my head. I just don't agree wtih you, sorry.

There are some animals that have been labeled a "myth" whose very descriptions etc derived first from people who have claimed to be eyewitnesses, etc. Then, you have animals which are undoubtedly mythological because their origins can be traced back to authors etc who just made them up.

Sometimes what people describe ends up being pretty close to the truth, as in the case of the okapi and sometimes they end up being way off base, such as thinking manatees were half fish/half woman.

My only argument has been in favor of keeping an open mind and allowing scientists to discover new species and explain some of these sightings, if they can. I haven't argued that bigfoot exists, or chupacabra, etc.

And, what makes me less qualified than you or samoth to debate a topic such as this one? I'm not allowed to debate in your opinion because of what? Why is it that anytime I don't agree with you, you think I shouldn't have the right to debate? You didn't point out that anyone else on this thread doesn't deserve the right to debate.

because I didnt care to read the whole thread.

All those creatures USED to be called mythological. Now we have 2 separate categories. The ones that have eyewitnesses are cryptozoological, the rest of them are mythological. Do you understand what me and samoth are trying to say to you?

I do have an open mind and I do agree with you on the subject that there is most likelly more creatures that we still havent found out. This planet is vast and it has quite a few under explored places.

I dont see you fit to argue the mythology (nothing personal) because I went to coledge studying those kind of things. Just the same as I cant argue the law with you - you went to school for that and obviously you know more than me.

 

[heatherrae]

I'm sure that argument worked great back in the 15th century. Fortunetly, we've come a long way since then. There is not bigfoot or lockness monster, sorry. But feel free to keep looking in the african rainforests and in the ocean, Captain Ahab.

No, it works right now.

I've pointed out probably 15 animals on this thread that people used to think were "mythological" that are now known species.

However, if it makes people feel intellectually superior to mock the scientists who look for such species, so be it.

However, one would think that these people are so fond of mocking would admit that they were wrong when these creatures are discovered. Personally, I would feel like a big asshole about mocking those who described the platypus, opaki, giant pandas, pygmy hippos, etc. Some people are immune to ever feeling wrong or corrected, I guess.

 

[pdaddyII]

lollol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2d_m2OVa_g

lolol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIUKjpBo_OM&mode=related&search=

 

[heatherrae]

because I didnt care to read the whole thread.

All those creatures USED to be called mythological. Now we have 2 separate categories. The ones that have eyewitnesses are cryptozoological, the rest of them are mythological. Do you understand what me and samoth are trying to say to you?

I do have an open mind and I do agree with you on the subject that there is most likelly more creatures that we still havent found out. This planet is vast and it has quite a few under explored places.

I dont see you fit to argue the mythology (nothing personal) because I went to coledge studying those kind of things. Just the same as I cant argue the law with you - you went to school for that and obviously you know more than me.

The thread creator mentioned chupacabra, bigfoot and devils under the rubric of "mythological." Then, people came on to ridicule any such notions as being uneducated and idiotic. I merely pointed out that such animals have been discovered that explain those eyewitness accounts and that people should have an open mind.

Now, if you want to draw a distinction between animals whose creation can be derived from literature and not from eyewitness accounts, I already made that point many posts ago.

I went to "coledge" [sic] too, but I don't really think a college education is required before I'm allowed to post my opinions on a topic on this chatboard.

 

[heatherrae]

as stated earlier, no correlation lawyers and high IQ's however direct correlation with personality type that gotta be right. lol.

If you can't attack the arguments, belittle the opponent?

That's the nanny nanny foo foo argument all dressed up.

 

[foreigngirl]

The thread creator mentioned chupacabra, bigfoot and devils under the rubric of "mythological." Then, people came on to ridicule any such notions as being uneducated and idiotic. I merely pointed out that such animals have been discovered that explain those eyewitness accounts and that people should have an open mind.

Now, if you want to draw a distinction between animals whose creation can be derived from literature and not from eyewitness accounts, I already made that point many posts ago.

I went to "coledge" [sic] too, but I don't really think a college education is required before I'm allowed to post my opinions on a topic on this chatboard.

opinion is one thing. I have my opinion about what a law should mean and be, but you, as schooled on that subject, would know better and I would not even try to argue it with you. Because I realize that you went to college for that and that you know better than I do...on that subject. Just the same as me knowing more than you on myths and you should respect that fact and not try to prove me wrong and prove yourself right. Cuz I wouldnt do that to you on a subject that you went to school for.

What I just pointed out and it WAS ment for the thread starter - that it was the wrong term calling chupacabra, bigfoot etc mythological, cuz they are not.

On the rest of your posts here, I agree with you.

 

[heatherrae]

opinion is one thing. I have my opinion about what a law should mean and be, but you, as schooled on that subject, would know better and I would not even try to argue it with you. Because I realize that you went to college for that and that you know better than I do...on that subject. Just the same as me knowing more than you on myths and you should respect that fact and not try to prove me wrong and prove yourself right. Cuz I wouldnt do that to you on a subject that you went to school for.

What I just pointed out and it WAS ment for the thread starter - that it was the wrong term calling chupacabra, bigfoot etc mythological, cuz they are not.

On the rest of your posts here, I agree with you.

If you want to argue that they shouldn't be called myths if they are derived from eyewitness accounts, I have no problem with that. That really has nothing to do with my points. On the other hand, samoth very clearly has labeled all these creatures as myths.

FG, I have studied other things besides law. Law is 3 years of graduate school. Undergraduate school was 4 years of liberal arts which is attended first.

If we made people have a college degree on here for every thread topic, this chatboard would get very quiet.

 

[foreigngirl]

If you want to argue that they shouldn't be called myths if they are derived from eyewitness accounts, I have no problem with that. That really has nothing to do with my points. On the other hand, samoth very clearly has labeled all these creatures as myths.

FG, I have studied other things besides law. Law is 3 years of graduate school. Undergraduate school was 4 years of liberal arts which is attended first.

If we made people have a college degree on here for every thread topic, this chatboard would get very quiet.

its one thing studying something just as a general knowledge and its different when you study it at depth. Everyone has general knowledge of things, but they specialize in only one subject.. Yours is law, mine is literature.

 

[heatherrae]

its one thing studying something just as a general knowledge and its different when you study it at depth. Everyone has general knowledge of things, but they specialize in only one subject.. Yours is law, mine is literature.

We aren't arguing literature.

 

[foreigngirl]

We aren't arguing literature.

myth is literature.

 

[swole]

this thread is clear supporting evidence that HR needs her own tv show where people call in to ask questions, cuz she got all da anzerz. case closed.

 

[heatherrae]

myth is literature.

not necessarily.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

 

[heatherrae]

this thread is clear supporting evidence that HR needs her own tv show where people call in to ask questions, cuz she got all da anzerz. case closed.

Sorry that you take offense that I have opinions on topics. I'll try to giggle and look cute when I see you coming so as to not offend your sensibilities on how a woman should behave.

 

[foreigngirl]

not necessarily.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

Are you fuckin serious?!!!!!!! You found to tell me that myth is not literature? I wonder than why the fuck did I spend 2 semesters in college, majoring in literature and languages, studying myths and comparative literature......

 

[heatherrae]

Are you fuckin serious?!!!!!!! You found to tell me that myth is not literature? I wonder than why the fuck did I spend 2 semesters in college, majoring in literature and languages, studying myths and comparative literature......

Myths exist inside and outside of literature. Read the definition. I didn't create the definition. Argue with the people at Random House...

 

[foreigngirl]

Myths exist inside and outside of literature.

I am sorry....but how is it that they exist outside literature? There you go again with that "I know everything" attitude. You are right now about making me wanna take a huge book of myths and slam it over your head. Even oral myths are literature because they fall into category folklor which is still literature

 

[heatherrae]

Here are the definitions. Go slam the creator or Random House unabridged dictionary over the head with your book. I didnt' create the definitions.


literature --
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.


Myth --

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.


Myths aren't required to be in literature to be defined as myths. Read the definitions.

 

[foreigngirl]

Here are the definitions. Go slam the creator or Random House unabridged dictionary over the head with your book. I didnt' create the definitions.


literature --
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.


Myth --

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.


Myths aren't required to be in literature to be defined as myths. Read the definitions.

your conclusion is that myth is not required to be under literature. What I see here is not what you are saying. You are confusing modern literature and myth and putting them separate. Its all literature. If it wasnt, it wouldnt have been such an important subject to study for 9 months. And stop being so driven to prove something that you have no clue about what-so-ever. Stick to your law and I will stick to my literature. Having a general knowledge is not a proof of having in-depth knowledge and let it go already.

 

[heatherrae]

your conclusion is that myth is not required to be under literature. What I see here is not what you are saying. You are confusing modern literature and myth and putting them separate. Its all literature. If it wasnt, it wouldnt have been such an important subject to study for 9 months. And stop being so driven to prove something that you have no clue about what-so-ever. Stick to your law and I will stick to my literature. Having a general knowledge is not a proof of having in-depth knowledge and let it go already.

I posted the definitions and you are very clearly wrong.

Myth is just a collective idea or belief bout something fictitious. It does not have to be written in literature.

Really, if you have a degree in this, it doesn't seem that you would be arguing about the basic definitions.

Once again, go argue with Random House that the definitions are incorrect, then.

However, surely you studied that myths were passed on through oral traditions, etc without being contained in literature, didn't you?

 

[Smurfy]

i tought literature was having to do with written words and text?
I thought it came from the Latin 'littera' meaning "an individual written character (letter)".

is there really an argument over semantics?

 

[heatherrae]

i tought literature was having to do with written words and text?
I thought it came from the Latin 'littera' meaning "an individual written character (letter)".

is there really an argument over semantics?

Seems like the most ridiculous and irrelevant argument to the topic, but FG wants to make an issue that myths are only derived from literature. Clearly, by definition, this isn't so, but I'm some kind of bitch for making this point...lol.

 

[foreigngirl]

Seems like the most ridiculous and irrelevant argument to the topic, but FG wants to make an issue that myths are only derived from literature. Clearly, by definition, this isn't so, but I'm some kind of bitch for making this point...lol.

you are not making a point. You are making yourself look stupid.

 

[heatherrae]

you are not making a point. You are making yourself look stupid.

Really? I'm not the one who is arguing with the definition of "literature" and "myth" and then telling other people to just shut up unless they have a degree in literature.

 

[Smurfy]

what about the myth that black men have larger penises?

 

[foreigngirl]

I posted the definitions and you are very clearly wrong.

Myth is just a collective idea or belief bout something fictitious. It does not have to be written in literature.

Really, if you have a degree in this, it doesn't seem that you would be arguing about the basic definitions.

Once again, go argue with Random House that the definitions are incorrect, then.

However, surely you studied that myths were passed on through oral traditions, etc without being contained in literature, didn't you?

Didnt I already tell you about the oral tradition? Oral tradition = folklor = you study it as a subject when you have a major in literature.

What do you consider literature, HR? Cuz, you have pretty narrow uncompetent views of what falls into that category.

I dont argue with you on any subject. But on this I will, till you get sick of it.

 

[heatherrae]

Didnt I already tell you about the oral tradition? Oral tradition = folklor = you study it as a subject when you have a major in literature.

What do you consider literature, HR? Cuz, you have pretty narrow uncompetent views of what falls into that category.

I dont argue with you on any subject. But on this I will, till you get sick of it.

You aren't arguing with me. YOu are arguing with random house dictionary.

 

[foreigngirl]

Really? I'm not the one who is arguing with the definition of "literature" and "myth" and then telling other people to just shut up unless they have a degree in literature.

everything is flying over your head. I feel like talking to the wall. I am starting to think that I am talking in a different language and thats why you do not understand me.


I didnt tell you to shut up JUST because you dont have a degree in literature. I just said that you should just admit that its not your field, even though you have general knowledge in it and stop trying to prove your false ideas. I would NOT argue law with you. I have the common sense of knowing when someone has deeper knowledge than me about something. You dont.

 

[foreigngirl]

You aren't arguing with me. YOu are arguing with random house dictionary.

no. With your perception of what that deffinition means.

 

[swole]

Sorry that you take offense that I have opinions on topics. I'll try to giggle and look cute when I see you coming so as to not offend your sensibilities on how a woman should behave.

you're in every thread, voicing your opinion about whatever the topic is like you're an expert. nobody cares about your superior debating skills. seriously, have some control and just flip the laptop shut. i can't wait for you to have the baby so it takes up most of your time. i know you're a sweet lady and all but it's hard to ignore how arrogant you come off at times

 

[heatherrae]

what about the myth that black men have larger penises?

I'm going to go gather some empirical proof and I'll get back with you on that one -- anything in the name of science!

 

[heatherrae]

no. With your perception of what that deffinition means.

OK.

Clearly we disagree on the english language. Those definitions are very clear and this isnt' a matter of perception.

 

[foreigngirl]

OK.

Clearly we disagree on the english language. Those definitions are very clear and this isnt' a matter of perception.

The deffinitions are clear. What is not clear to you is that mythology (and folklore) is still related to literature and thats why its studied when you are majoring in that subject.

 

[heatherrae]

you're in every thread, voicing your opinion about whatever the topic is like you're an expert. nobody cares about your superior debating skills. seriously, have some control and just flip the laptop shut. i can't wait for you to have the baby so it takes up most of your time. i know you're a sweet lady and all but it's hard to ignore how arrogant you come off at times

Sorry that I have opinions and debate them. What a miscreant I am!




I don't own a laptop, but if you want to mail me one, I could use it at the hospital to post more opinions on topics.


No one seems to have any problem with anyone else having an opinion. lol.

Plus, my posting a definition clearly has nothing to do with my opinion. Some people's pride just makes them never admit that they are wrong. She is clearly completely incorrect, by definition.

 

[Sub-Zero]

you're in every thread, voicing your opinion about whatever the topic is like you're an expert. nobody cares about your superior debating skills. seriously, have some control and just flip the laptop shut. i can't wait for you to have the baby so it takes up most of your time. i know you're a sweet lady and all but it's hard to ignore how arrogant you come off at times

x120,000

 

[foreigngirl]

Sorry that I have opinions and debate them. What a miscreant I am!




I don't own a laptop, but if you want to mail me one, I could use it at the hospital to post more opinions on topics.


No one seems to have any problem with anyone else having an opinion. lol.

Plus, my posting a definition clearly has nothing to do with my opinion. Some people's pride just makes them never admit that they are wrong. She is clearly completely incorrect, by definition.

and you are always correct. By deffinition. You felt that you were incometent and you went to look for stuff on the internet thinking they would support your theory. Your arrogance, ego and pride is what is big. I see you arguing on almost every subject there is trying to prove your point of view as a valid one. You dont see me doing it. I stop. But I told you - I am not backing up with this, cuz this is my field of expertise and you do NOT know more and you still havent found a way to discredit me.

 

[Smurfy]

These animals were also considered "mythological" Natives described a mix between a giraffe and a zebra. They were ridiculed as stupid and superstitious uneducated natives.

Guess who turned out to be right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi

Now you are trying to say that actually the half giraffe half zebra "myth" is still a myth and that this creature can't be compared - thus apples and oranges. However, you have to take into consideration that this is the animal that they were describing seeing. They hadn't caught one to examine it, do tests on it, etc. They were just describing what they were seeing.

I bet is sure as hell sounded outrageous! If I had never seen one and I had to bet which was more likely to be true, the okapi or a bigfoot, I would probably think that the bigfoot sounded less outrageous. Wouldn't you?

heather, i think what foreigngirl and samoth are saying (and perhaps it's not clear) is that these kind of animal species/creatures would never fall into a category of MYTHICAL/MYTH/MYTHOLOGY but rather CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL because it is an animal and not something like a fairy.
so it seems you have two categories of creatures (mythical & cryptozoological) all confused into one (Mythical). I think what they are saying is theses are two different types of creatures. Types of animals that are known to exist and then other creatures that are not animals, like fairies and such.

at least that's what I got from reading this thread.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Sorry that I have opinions and debate them. What a miscreant I am!




I don't own a laptop, but if you want to mail me one, I could use it at the hospital to post more opinions on topics.


No one seems to have any problem with anyone else having an opinion. lol.

Plus, my posting a definition clearly has nothing to do with my opinion. Some people's pride just makes them never admit that they are wrong. She is clearly completely incorrect, by definition.

you present yours in a very rude 'know-it-all' manner, and when someone is certain that your wrong, its frustrating how much of a stubborn jackass you can be.

you simply care way too much about being viewed as smart and all-knowing, which is a sad place to be

 

[heatherrae]

The deffinitions are clear. What is not clear to you is that mythology (and folklore) is still related to literature and thats why its studied when you are majoring in that subject.

a myth can be contained in literature, but does not have to be.

Once again, you are arguing with the definitions. Write to random house and tell them that they are wrong and should change their definitions, then.

This is a stupid debate that has little relevance to the meaning of the thread.

 

[Sub-Zero]

a myth can be contained in literature, but does not have to be.

Once again, you are arguing with the definitions. Write to random house and tell them that they are wrong and should change their definitions, then.

This is a stupid debate that has little relevance to the meaning of the thread.

quit fucking talking about random house.

its her feild.

people in her feild write the operational definitions of the things they study.

that makes her an authority to refute or agree with definitions (even if that is what she was doing).

you are not an authority.

so quit arguing.

im sorry to gang up on you in this thread, but i figure since everyone is basically saying what if been trying to tell you for ages, then i may as well hop in and support it.

 

[heatherrae]

you present yours in a very rude 'know-it-all' manner, and when someone is certain that your wrong, its frustrating how much of a stubborn jackass you can be.

you simply care way too much about being viewed as smart and all-knowing, which is a sad place to be

How about you try actually reading the debate kiddo instead of arguing with me without even looking. Very clearly you would see that I'm not wrong. Sorry I dont' back down from a debate. I know us women should know our places.

 

[Smurfy]

heather, i think what foreigngirl and samoth are saying (and perhaps it's not clear) is that these kind of animal species/creatures would never fall into a category of MYTHICAL/MYTH/MYTHOLOGY but rather CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL because it is an animal and not something like a fairy.
so it seems you have two categories of creatures (mythical & cryptozoological) all confused into one (Mythical). I think what they are saying is theses are two different types of creatures. Types of animals that are known to exist and then other creatures that are not animals, like fairies and such.

at least that's what I got from reading this thread.

did this post get overlooked?

 

[foreigngirl]

a myth can be contained in literature, but does not have to be.

Once again, you are arguing with the definitions. Write to random house and tell them that they are wrong and should change their definitions, then.

This is a stupid debate that has little relevance to the meaning of the thread.

I am not arguing with the definitions. I was arguing with you when I told you I have studied literature and you told me myth is not under that category. If it was so clearly different, it wouldnt have been subject. It would have been absent just the same as science and physics was absent.

Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions we studied them under folklore literature.

Please understand what I am trying to get through your thick head for the past 4-5 pages.

 

[foreigngirl]

did this post get overlooked?

I read it and you are right.

Me and HR agreed on that finally. That animals that had witnesses are cryptozoological and the rest of them are mythical

 

[samoth]

I never thought this thread would hit 250/1000. Man, I gotta learn how to make TOTW-quality threads myself, dammit.

 

[foreigngirl]

How about you try actually reading the debate kiddo instead of arguing with me without even looking. Very clearly you would see that I'm not wrong. Sorry I dont' back down from a debate. I know us women should know our places.

do you ever look back and hear yourself? You are belittling him as if he is just a dust on your counter. Who do you think you are believing you are an expertise in everything? You are clearly wrong. Admit it and move on to debating something that you know about.

 

[Sub-Zero]

How about you try actually reading the debate kiddo instead of arguing with me without even looking. Very clearly you would see that I'm not wrong. Sorry I dont' back down from a debate. I know us women should know our places.

this is why so many people hate to get in any exchange with you that doesnt include agreeing. i could read the entire thread, agree with you 100%, and then see foreigngirl studies in the feild, and completely believe her. i believe people who have the most experience on a subject, since they study it more and have more knowledge about it. i was arguing not about the topic, but about the fact that your very arrogant.

foreigngirl is one of the most levelheaded and kind wimmins on this forum, and you still find the need to be rude to her while arguing a topic that falls under HER area of expertise.

i wouldnt argue with you about stuff that youre an expert in, such as law, or sucking dick, so why are you being such a cunt.

 

[Smurfy]

I read it and you are right.

Me and HR agreed on that finally. That animals that had witnesses are cryptozoological and the rest of them are mythical

oh, then i dont see what the debate is about.

 

[heatherrae]

did this post get overlooked?

That isn't what was said, however. Samoth and others labeled bigfoot a "myth" and laughed that anyone would look for it. My entire point has been that many animals that were once considered not to exist (whether you want to call them "myths" is irrelevant) have been found to exist. These animals seem just as fantastic and unlikely as some of the ones listed in the original post, i.e. bigfoot.

As far as FG is concerned, I told her that I don't really care if she wants to use the "myth" label or just call them undiscovered. It really is of no importance to my argument.

However, then she went off on some tangent that "myth" is only a product of literature. It really is so wholly irrelevant to the gist of the thread. However, by definition, she is just wrong. She can argue that the definition should be changed if she likes, but that IS the definition.

Frankly, any time I debate any topic, it seems like the whole board would argue the sky is purple if I said it was blue. If I post a definition or some sort of evidence, they resort to attacking me personally or my character. It gets silly after a while.

 

[foreigngirl]

oh, then i dont see what the debate is about.

Now its only about if mythology falls under literature. She feels she is right. I know I am right, cuz I majored in literature and had extensive studies on mythology and folklor. If those were not relevant to literature, they would have been just mentioned. We wouldnt have to spend 2 semestars studying myths and folklor as 2 separate subjects. She still feels that she know more tham me, even though she hasnt done nearly in-depth study as I have. So, the expert (me) doesnt know shit, cuz the random person (HR) has to be above all

 

[heatherrae]

I am not arguing with the definitions. I was arguing with you when I told you I have studied literature and you told me myth is not under that category. If it was so clearly different, it wouldnt have been subject. It would have been absent just the same as science and physics was absent.

Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions we studied them under folklore literature.

Please understand what I am trying to get through your thick head for the past 4-5 pages.

I never said that myths are not part of literature.

I said that not all myths are a part of literature.

some myths are in literature. some are not. Do you not get this?

 

[Sub-Zero]

Frankly, any time I debate any topic, it seems like the whole board would argue the sky is purple if I said it was blue. If I post a definition or some sort of evidence, they resort to attacking me personally or my character. It gets silly after a while.

 

[foreigngirl]

However, then she went off on some tangent that "myth" is only a product of literature. It really is so wholly irrelevant to the gist of the thread. However, by definition, she is just wrong. She can argue that the definition should be changed if she likes, but that IS the definition.

.

OMG, you clearly dont read good. I never said myth is a PRODUCT of literature. I said that myth is studied UNDER THE CATEGORY LITERATURE. Which I studied. And which I know more about than you. Period. Case closed

 

[JumpBallWinner]

The loch ness creature has been given a name in science, " Nessiteras Rhombopteryx"

So is it allowed to exist now?

 

[foreigngirl]

I never said that myths are not part of literature.

I said that not all myths are a part of literature.

some myths are in literature. some are not. Do you not get this?

the first sentence - yes, its true.


the other two - no, they are not true. Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions (which you would say are not literature) we studied them under folklore literature.

 

[heatherrae]

OMG, you clearly dont read good. I never said myth is a PRODUCT of literature. I said that myth is studied UNDER THE CATEGORY LITERATURE. Which I studied. And which I know more about than you. Period. Case closed

I "don't read good?" I won't even explain to you the irony of that.

I never said that there are not myths in literature.

I've never debated with anyone worse at it than you, no offense.

 

[heatherrae]

the first sentence - yes, its true.


the other two - no, they are not true. Gilgamesh is a myth. We studied it under ancient literature. The apocryphas too. The oral traditions (which you would say are not literature) we studied them under folklore literature.

Read the definition of literature and get back to me next week. Seriously, i don't care anymore...LOL.

 

[foreigngirl]

I "don't read good?" I won't even explain to you the irony of that.

I never said that there are not myths in literature.

I've never debated with anyone worse at it than you, no offense.

You cant debate something that you are not familiar with. And you cant debate facts.

Read the definition of literature and get back to me next week. Seriously, i don't care anymore...LOL.

why dont you shut off your computer and start reading something that just might get you to understand something and then you call me? Mmmmkay? Dont tell me what to do and dont present yourself as more-knowing than me, cuz you are just not. Admit it, say, "okay, maybe I do have to read up on it" and call it a day

 

[Sub-Zero]

I "don't read good?" I won't even explain to you the irony of that.

I never said that there are not myths in literature.

I've never debated with anyone worse at it than you, no offense.

your a cunt, simply put. i cant believe you could even think to expect others to respect you when you treat other's this way. you must have the crazy mother gene, i can get you my mom's therapist if you need it.


also, isnt FOREIGNgirl's first language not english? how many languages have you mastered again, heatherrae?

 

[Smurfy]

Now its only about if mythology falls under literature. She feels she is right. I know I am right, cuz I majored in literature and had extensive studies on mythology and folklor. If those were not relevant to literature, they would have been just mentioned. We wouldnt have to spend 2 semestars studying myths and folklor as 2 separate subjects. She still feels that she know more tham me, even though she hasnt done nearly in-depth study as I have. So, the expert (me) doesnt know shit, cuz the random person (HR) has to be above all

well be careful calling yourself an expert even after studying for 2 whole semesters.

you two are clearly referring to two separate definitions of the word, MYTH. This is what's causing your arguments.
Heather is using her interpretation of the word myth as the layman's version and saying that something can be referred to as a "myth" but not be written in text anywhere, and therefore not in written literature. but again, this version of the word "myth" seems to be different than the word "myth" you are referring to.
you are referring to the textbook definition because that is the actual true definition and one that you studied.

brb sloppy joes are done cookin

 

[samoth]

The loch ness creature has been given a name in science, " Nessiteras Rhombopteryx"

So is it allowed to exist now?

That's just latin nomenclature. I can define a nomenclature x, where x = whatever I want it to. That doesn't mean it exists, or that it's science. Only that I gave it a name.

 

[heatherrae]

your a cunt, simply put. i cant believe you could even think to expect others to respect you when you treat other's this way. you must have the crazy mother gene, i can get you my mom's therapist if you need it.


also, isnt FOREIGNgirl's first language not english? how many languages have you mastered again, heatherrae?

Why don't you try reading as well. I've been patiently posting definitions to a lady who called me "stupid" etc.

sorry if I have not patience for either of you, anymore.

If you want to write to Random house and tell them that their definitions are incorrect, go ahead.

Frankly, I couldn't give a flip whether a 19 year old boy who didn't read the thread wants to call me names.

 

[Cal_21]

well be careful calling yourself an expert even after studying for 2 whole semesters.

you two are clearly referring to two separate definitions of the word, MYTH. This is what's causing your arguments.
Heather is using her interpretation of the word myth as the layman's version and saying that something can be referred to as a "myth" but not be written in text anywhere, and therefore not in written literature. but again, this version of the word "myth" seems to be different than the word "myth" you are referring to.
you are referring to the textbook definition because that is the actual true definition and one that you studied.

brb sloppy joes are done cookin

Kai have one?

 

[samoth]

you two are clearly referring to two separate definitions of the word, MYTH. This is what's causing your arguments.

HEY! Stop that! We have to have something to argue here, and recognizing that we're arguing from different POV's isn't going to do anything but bring this thread to a screeching halt.

 

[foreigngirl]

well be careful calling yourself an expert even after studying for 2 whole semesters.

2 semestars only for those subjects. I am not talking about the rest of the comparable literatures, children literatures, linguistics, slavic languages, slavic literature,theory of literature and etc.....

 

[Smurfy]

HEY! Stop that! We have to have something to argue here, and recognizing that we're arguing from different POV's isn't going to do anything but bring this thread to a screeching halt.

right. why in the world would we want that?

 

[Cal_21]

HEY! Stop that! We have to have something to argue here, and recognizing that we're arguing from different POV's isn't going to do anything but bring this thread to a screeching halt.

lol

 

[heatherrae]

You cant debate something that you are not familiar with. And you cant debate facts.


why dont you shut off your computer and start reading something that just might get you to understand something and then you call me? Mmmmkay? Dont tell me what to do and dont present yourself as more-knowing than me, cuz you are just not. Admit it, say, "okay, maybe I do have to read up on it" and call it a day

Once again, it isn't my definitions. You want to present a different definition, then do so and post your source. Mine is random house dictionary. Yours is non-existent or something you think you remember from 2 semesters of literature.

Post up a link to a different definition, then.

 

[Smurfy]

2 semestars only for those subjects. I am not talking about the rest of the comparable literatures, children literatures, linguistics, slavic languages, slavic literature,theory of literature and etc.....

i see what you're saying. i have a bachelors degree in psychology and 3 classes shy of my masters in the same, and I still would never call myself an expert. schooling alone doesnt make someone an expert by any means, IMHO.

 

[heatherrae]

well be careful calling yourself an expert even after studying for 2 whole semesters.

you two are clearly referring to two separate definitions of the word, MYTH. This is what's causing your arguments.
Heather is using her interpretation of the word myth as the layman's version and saying that something can be referred to as a "myth" but not be written in text anywhere, and therefore not in written literature. but again, this version of the word "myth" seems to be different than the word "myth" you are referring to.
you are referring to the textbook definition because that is the actual true definition and one that you studied.

brb sloppy joes are done cookin

I'm using this definition, smurfy. Random House unabridged dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature

which clearly is in contradiction to her argument, but she hasn't posted anything else except calling me "stupid" and such.

 

[foreigngirl]

i see what you're saying. i have a bachelors degree in psychology and 3 classes shy of my masters in the same, and I still would never call myself an expert. schooling alone doesnt make someone an expert by any means, IMHO.

well, I might be using the wrong word. In any case, I wont be humble about this as I am about anything else and I am gonna say that I am superior to her on that field.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

she hasn't posted anything else except calling me "stupid" and such.

that's because you are an idiot. she is just stating the obvious.

 

[heatherrae]

HEY! Stop that! We have to have something to argue here, and recognizing that we're arguing from different POV's isn't going to do anything but bring this thread to a screeching halt.

Samoth, for sake of making this even relevant, what is your definition that you are using to describe a "myth?"

Are you differentiating things that originated in fictional works from those that originated or are believed to be originated from eyewitness accounts?

Do you agree that the examples that I posted were those that originated from eyewitness accounts? Do you agree that these animals were widely believed to be non-existent?

In your opinion is bigfoot a myth?

 

[foreigngirl]

Once again, it isn't my definitions. You want to present a different definition, then do so and post your source. Mine is random house dictionary. Yours is non-existent or something you think you remember from 2 semesters of literature.

Post up a link to a different definition, then.

For the 5th time - I AM NOT ARGUING THE DEFINITIONS.

Childrens literature, for example, is a separate category and has its own definition.

SF literature is a separate category and has its own definition.

Mythology is a separate category and has its own definition.

THEY ARE ALL STUDIED UNDER LITERATURE. Thats what I am arguing. And yes, all myths fall under that broad category, because even folklor (oral literature and traditions) is studied under the same

 

[heatherrae]

well, I might be using the wrong word. In any case, I wont be humble about this as I am about anything else and I am gonna say that I am superior to her on that field.

First of all, this thread isn't even about literature. Secondly, the "I'm better than her" defense is a little sophomoric.

 

[foreigngirl]

First of all, this thread isn't even about literature. Secondly, the "I'm better than her" defense is a little sophmoric.

it took us where we are.

And using belittling words as "my dear" and "kiddo" is such a grown up thing to do. Humble too.

It takes a lot to get me going. But you succeeded in it. Congrats

 

[heatherrae]

For the 5th time - I AM NOT ARGUING THE DEFINITIONS.

Childrens literature, for example, is a separate category and has its own definition.

SF literature is a separate category and has its own definition.

Mythology is a separate category and has its own definition.

THEY ARE ALL STUDIED UNDER LITERATURE. Thats what I am arguing. And yes, all myths fall under that broad category, because even folklor (oral literature and traditions) is studied under the same

Read the definition of literature or post a different one.

Also see the definition of myth, which includes "any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth" or "an imaginary or fictitious thing or person."

The definition of myth does not require that the myth be a folklore or a literary work.

I'm sorry that random house doesn't agree with you. I really am, because you can't seem to post any relevant evidence to support your point of view, and it obviously very upsetting to you.

 

[heatherrae]

it took us where we are.

And using belittling words as "my dear" and "kiddo" is such a grown up thing to do. Humble too.

It takes a lot to get me going. But you succeeded in it. Congrats

Thank you. I guess your calling me "stupid" was very mature.

I'm glad you are worked up, though.

 

[foreigngirl]

Read the definition of literature or post a different one.

you are a waste of my time. You will never understand what I am trying to get through you.

Btw, I didnt have JUST 2 semestars of literature. I had way more than that. I had 2 semestars of extensive study on myths and folklor, just the same as every subject had 2 semestars. There is no need to study myths for full 4 years. Through the years you still work with them, but not as intensly. You use them in comparative literature. But of course, you gonna take this and turn in into something else that suits you.

Read this again, take a breath, wait a week if you need that much time to digest that and than tell us your precious opinion (I dont know what is so complicated about this):

I AM NOT ARGUING THE DEFINITIONS.

Childrens literature, for example, is a separate category and has its own definition.

SF literature is a separate category and has its own definition.

Mythology is a separate category and has its own definition.

THEY ARE ALL STUDIED UNDER LITERATURE. Thats what I am arguing. And yes, all myths fall under that broad category, because even folklor (oral literature and traditions) is studied under the same

 

[foreigngirl]

Thank you. I guess your calling me "stupid" was very mature.

I'm glad you are worked up, though.

just so we can be at the same level, dear.


And I am glad that you got me worked up too. Cuz when my husband comes home, I will have the craziest, most animalistic (sp???) sex that I have ever had in my life. So, its a very good thing.

 

[heatherrae]

you are a waste of my time. You will never understand what I am trying to get through you.

Btw, I didnt have JUST 2 semestars of literature. I had way more than that. I had 2 semestars of extensive study on myths and folklor, just the same as every subject had 2 semestars. There is no need to study myths for full 4 years. Through the years you still work with them, but not as intensly. You use them in comparative literature. But of course, you gonna take this and turn in into something else that suits you.

Read this again, take a breath, wait a week if you need that much time to digest that and than tell us your precious opinion (I dont know what is so complicated about this):

It really isn't an important argument, FG. Don't get all worked up. In the scope of things it really doesn't matter whether you and I think myth has a wider rubric than that of literature, whether we think they should be studied further, whether we think bigfoot is going to come and tuck us in tonight.

It isn't anything worth arguing over.

Agree to disagree.

 

[heatherrae]

just so we can be at the same level, dear.


And I am glad that you got me worked up too. Cuz when my husband comes home, I will have the craziest, most animalistic (sp???) sex that I have ever had in my life. So, its a very good thing.

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

Enjoy your sexy time though, gal. Woo hoo! lol. I'm not even remotely angry.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Why don't you try reading as well. I've been patiently posting definitions to a lady who called me "stupid" etc.

sorry if I have not patience for either of you, anymore.

If you want to write to Random house and tell them that their definitions are incorrect, go ahead.

Frankly, I couldn't give a flip whether a 19 year old boy who didn't read the thread wants to call me names.

lololol

 

[foreigngirl]

It really isn't an important argument, FG. Don't get all worked up. In the scope of things it really doesn't matter whether you and I think myth has a wider rubric than that of literature, whether we think they should be studied further, whether we think bigfoot is going to come and tuck us in tonight.

It isn't anything worth arguing over.

Agree to disagree.

But thats what I tried to tell you - it doesnt have a wider rubric than literature, cuz literature is such a broad term and bunch of other categories fall under it. They are all separate, with separate definitions, but still under that wide repertoar. Just the same as science - it has a lot of different categories falling under it, but they are all under that broad term

 

[Arabian]

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

NOW NOW HR Play nicely

 

[heatherrae]

NOW NOW HR Play nicely

I'm sowwy. I'm trying.

 

[Sub-Zero]

It really isn't an important argument, FG. Don't get all worked up. In the scope of things it really doesn't matter whether you and I think myth has a wider rubric than that of literature, whether we think they should be studied further, whether we think bigfoot is going to come and tuck us in tonight.

It isn't anything worth arguing over.

Agree to disagree.

then why act like a spoiled 13 year old princess about it

 

[heatherrae]

But thats what I tried to tell you - it doesnt have a wider rubric than literature, cuz literature is such a broad term and bunch of other categories fall under it. They are all separate, with separate definitions, but still under that wide repertoar. Just the same as science - it has a lot of different categories falling under it, but they are all under that broad term

I just disagree based on those definitions. It isn't anything for either of us to get angry about.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

Enjoy your sexy time though, gal. Woo hoo! lol. I'm not even remotely angry.

whether you feel you have a right to be (to me cause im younger) or not, you have a tendancy to be VERY rude and condescending to those you argue with. reread some of your posts. im an asshole, usually, but its the fact that you act the way you do, and then play victim in the middle of it all, that is agrevating and immature

 

[samoth]

Samoth, for sake of making this even relevant, what is your definition that you are using to describe a "myth?"

Are you differentiating things that originated in fictional works from those that originated or are believed to be originated from eyewitness accounts?

Do you agree that the examples that I posted were those that originated from eyewitness accounts? Do you agree that these animals were widely believed to be non-existent?

In your opinion is bigfoot a myth?

I view word definitions as an amalgamation of the dictionary, everyday use (as I see it, that is, in my own environment) and as a kind of vernacular meme.

I view a myth as something invariant of time. If there was a "myth" of x in anno 1600, but x actually existed, the "myth" but a spreading rumor, then I would not consider x to be a myth. I define a myth as something tangible (in the same way a deity is tangible) based purely on belief, regardless of if something "similar" actually exists. The giant squid or krakan of Verne's classic work is myth, but the giant squid architeuthis n. are fact. I recognize these as seperate entities. The belief is the myth, while the fact remains just that -- fact -- invariant of how its percieved in literary, vernacular, traditional, or media outlets.

Maintaining my first post in this thread, "Well, if they're mythical creatures, obviously they do not exist outside of myth, else it would negate such a term." Basically, this is what I've been arguing the entire time. Washington is not a mythical creature. He existed. The exaggerated or untrue coeval perceptions of him would be mythical, but the actual person himself was not, and is not, a myth.

And yes, I fully recognize the circular fallacy that exists in my temporally-invariant definition that hasn't been explicitly pointed out yet. It's still fun to debate.

 

[heatherrae]

whether you feel you have a right to be (to me cause im younger) or not, you have a tendancy to be VERY rude and condescending to those you argue with. reread some of your posts. im an asshole, usually, but its the fact that you act the way you do, and then play victim in the middle of it all, that is agrevating and immature

did you read the entire thread? I don't think you did. I was giving nothing but my opinion and logical arguments and then some definitions. I got called stupid by FG and a cunt by you. The most I said in retaliation was "dear" to her and "kiddo" to you.

Your post really didnt even deserve a response from me, yet I'm the one telling everyone to chill out and not get all worked up over a dumb thread.

 

[foreigngirl]

Same level? I hadn't said a word to you like that. You called me stupid before I called you "dear." You pulled out the names. "Dear" can hardly be compared to "stupid" and I was calling sub "kiddo." I always call him "kiddo" whether we are agreeing or disagreeing.

Enjoy your sexy time though, gal. Woo hoo! lol. I'm not even remotely angry.

I aint angry anymore either. But you did call me "my dear" and it pissed me off. And it did make me feel as if you are acting as being my teacher. The scholar in me had to voice up. Sorry. You just have to understand that even those definitions were explaining the same thing I am telling, but hey......Literature is broad category with a lot of sub-categories each with separate definition, just as what you posted. Your definitions still do not negate that myth falls under that broad category.

 

[heatherrae]

I view word definitions as an amalgamation of the dictionary, everyday use (as I see it, that is, in my own environment) and as a kind of vernacular meme.

I view a myth as something invariant of time. If there was a "myth" of x in anno 1600, but x actually existed, the "myth" but a spreading rumor, then I would not consider x to be a myth. I define a myth as something tangible (in the same way a deity is tangible) based purely on belief, regardless of if something "similar" actually exists. The giant squid or krakan of Verne's classic work is myth, but the giant squid architeuthis n. are fact. I recognize these as seperate entities. The belief is the myth, while the fact remains just that -- fact -- invariant of how its percieved in literary, vernacular, traditional, or media outlets.

Maintaining my first post in this thread, "Well, if they're mythical creatures, obviously they do not exist outside of myth, else it would negate such a term." Basically, this is what I've been arguing the entire time. Washington is not a mythical creature. He existed. The exaggerated or untrue coeval perceptions of him would be mythical, but the actual person himself was not, and is not, a myth.

And yes, I fully recognize the circular fallacy that exists in my temporally-invariant definition that hasn't been explicitly pointed out yet. It's still fun to debate.

you little shithead.

Well, yes, I agree that if it is a myth, then it is a myth and if it is not a myth, then it is not a myth.

I see the argument that you are making even though it is completely not helpful on any level.

 

[heatherrae]

I aint angry anymore either. But you did call me "my dear" and it pissed me off. And it did make me feel as if you are acting as being my teacher. The scholar in me had to voice up. Sorry. You just have to understand that even those definitions were explaining the same thing I am telling, but hey......Literature is broad category with a lot of sub-categories each with separate definition, just as what you posted. Your definitions still do not negate that myth falls under that broad category.

"Dear" is not a pejorative term in my area of the country. It doesn't denote any sort of superiority in the south.

Agree to disagree on the definitions, FG. We aren't going to change each other's minds, and it is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. Plus, we arent really debating a topic that is going to make either of us go hungry tonight, anyway.

 

[samoth]

Well, yes, I agree that if it is a myth, then it is a myth and if it is not a myth, then it is not a myth.

Kinda. If, at any time t there exists x, then x is not a myth, for we define a myth as something that does not exist (the empty set). See, this way, I can cover all bases. It's like giving an argument the ability to time travel.

 

[heatherrae]

Kinda. If, at any time t there exists x, then x is not a myth, for we define a myth as something that does not exist (the empty set). See, this way, I can cover all bases. It's like giving an argument the ability to time travel.

lol...I get you. Logics games about empty sets, etc. LOL.

Okay, now from a PRACTICAL standpoint and not from a roundabout game of logical deduction, do you believe that it is ridiculous for people to look for unknown species to explain the alleged sightings of Nessy or bigfoot?

 

[foreigngirl]

"Dear" is not a pejorative term in my area of the country. It doesn't denote any sort of superiority in the south.

Agree to disagree on the definitions, FG. We aren't going to change each other's minds, and it is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. Plus, we arent really debating a topic that is going to make either of us go hungry tonight, anyway.

In my area and even in my country can be used in a sarcastic matter. I cant see your face and hear your tone HR. But I am glad you explained that.

To me its a very important topic, cuz thats my passion. I cant agree with you that myth is literature and it is not. You are taking those definitions the wrong way. I explained to you 7 times already and you are still not getting it. Or choosing to do so. Either way, you got the wrong idea about them definitions. The def. are not wrong - you take them the wrong way and making a stretch out of it.