ydoaPs Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 why do you say vampires HAVE to be fictional? there are people with extreme sensitivity to light, people that are allergic to garlic, people with iron deficiency (especially females), and people that drink blood.
YT2095 Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 isn`t that what I already said in a past post? I also mentioned that they were just normal people with an alery/illness, that does NOT make them a "Vampire", confused stories and ill informed folk make the vampires "real", NOT fact. and so.... they are Fiction only.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 They are not people with pointy teeth that live in coffins.
ydoaPs Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 They are not people with pointy teeth that live in coffins. that is not true. have u ever learned about those cults? what if a person had all of those diseases and was in one of the cults; would they be a "vampire"?
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Is "cannot pass by free-running water" a disease?
ydoaPs Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Is "cannot pass by free-running water" a disease? what the bloody hell are you talking about? on a side note, has anyone noticed that my posts are often the start of tangents?
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Seriously, one of the weird old vampire "rules" has something to do with them being unable to cross running water. Apparently.
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 It's fairly arcane. There are some other bizarre and apparently meaningless ones but they escape me at the minute.
Pleiades Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 What vampires really areThe mentions the inability of a vampire to cross running water. “Running water, which vampires cannot cross. This varies by tradition with some stories having vampires simply turning into a bat and flying over when faced with this obstacle.”
SurfSciGuy Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 I have a few probs with the theory: 1. It relies on a contentious definition of the perfect fighting machine - surely that depends on circumstance. For instance humans would be pretty crap in space without the aid of technology. 2. The title suggests that humans are a weapon of mass destruction. Humans is plural, weapon is singular. Sure if I dropped a million standard bombs on a city it would cause mass destruction, but the bombs themselves are not weapons of mass destruction. Can a human kill thousands in one go? Not directly, so a human can't be a weapon of mass destruction. 3. Are vampires good at fighting? Most anecdotal evidence (we are talking pseudoscience here so I feel it is submissible) indicates that whilst vampires are very good at seducing young women and sucking out their blood, when it comes to argy bargy they usually end up on the wrong side of a stake. In fact are werewolves, yetis and bigfoots good at fighting? As for the aliens and gene stuff, yep it's plausable.
MolecularMan14 Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 I dunno, when reading the original Dracula it says that Vamps have the strength of 10 men at night. I'll have to look it up again, when I get home.
SurfSciGuy Posted August 9, 2004 Posted August 9, 2004 I dunno, when reading the original Dracula it says that Vamps have the strength of 10 men at night. I'll have to look it up again, when I get home. But that doesn't neccessarily mean they are good at fighting. Also do you mean "strength of 10 men, at night" or "strength of 10 men at night"?
MolecularMan14 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 lol, yes, I, think, that, I, use, commas, a, little, too, much. But anyway, strength would help with the fighting. Having so much power.
ydoaPs Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 But that doesn't neccessarily mean they are good at fighting. Also do you mean "strength of 10 men, at night" or "strength of 10 men at night"? what is the difference? are ten men weaker because of the lack of daylight?
Recommended Posts