@~The dwarves, dragons and wotnots saga continues with another
@~three articles from James Judge, Nogwidget (yes, I said
@~Nogwidget) and Jean Childs.

Dwarves, Dragons and all the other points commented upon by the
three nutters last issue...

               by another nutter, James Judge.

Oooh, I seem to have stirred up some interest, well, here goes the
responses.  Replying to three whole articles in one go is quite a
harrowing thought, so I'm doing it in one of my strange moods (I'm
expecting a PBM turn tomorrow, and a few other things through the
post so I'm a happy fellow - not to mention all the extra work
that I have been given (paid as well) and the fact that I am
SCOTY!).

I'm not going to intermix the articles - it'd be too confusing for
me, let alone you, the ones who have to read this!

Grimwold's article...

I used to think that Grimwold was strange, non-existent and the
crazed imaginings of Simon Avery who, after many years of playing
text adventures, final inserted the electrical wires into the
nasal passages and flicked the on switch to 'on'. As a matter of
fact, I still do.

Oh, and my name is not silly. Yeah, yeah, 'Judge' - a reviewer,
the perfect name for a 'judger' of games etc. I'm laughing -
honest <cough>. Avery - now that IS funny. It proves to you that
not only is he a silly man, he has got a silly name to boot.

'Grim' said that there must be someone at that end, tapping away
at the computer keyboard. Too right he is too. For those of you
who have never had contact with this entity called Grimwold, he is
the second personality of Simon Avery. In an interview I did with
him once he said (and I quote):


JJ - Firstly, to provide an active interest between the player of
your games and you, Simon, tell us a bit about yourself.
SA - Simon's 22 years of age, 6'2" tall, works as a tree surgeon
(which is a lot more boring than it sounds) and likes scampi.
Grimwold [JJ - and here is where it starts to get surreal] is 4'
nothing, 120 years of age, works at elf battering and likes
anything that he can catch. It's tough being trapped in a 6'2"
frame.

Here we can see that Simon is saying that Grimwold is fictitious.
How else could a Dwarf fit into a human's frame? We all know that
Dwarves have got thick legs (well, they would have if they
existed) for all of that fighting etc. they do. So, how do you
propose to fit all of those legs into the calf and lower part of
the thigh of a human? With a Dwarven groin that comes well below
that of a human, you'd also be presented with an interesting
possibility when it comes to public loos... So, the only other way
that a Dwarf could fit into the frame of a human would be him
being stretched, squished and pulled around mightily - then he
wouldn't be a Dwarf - he'd be a human!

I agree with Simon that height is a relative thing. I can remember
when I was about four when there was a spider on my bedroom wall.
To me it seemed like a tarantula, but now I know that it was just
a small(ish) house spider. I still don't like them, no matter the
size, but at least I know that size IS a relative thing from being
a 3' something youngster to my 5'6" height now (yup, I'm a
shorty).

Now, 'Grimwold' said that I was ridiculing him. I didn't intend to
and, as he doesn't exist - how can I ridicule him?

Simon then goes onto some track about age being another relative
matter. Yes, it may be a relative matter as moths live a lifetime
in the time it takes us to live for a few days. But, that still
doesn't mean that as Dwarves see time to move quicker than humans
Dwarves would live longer. As I said, Dwarves must live on worlds
that are similar to Earth, with a similar gravitational pull.
Why? Because we often hear of HUMANS living in the same world -
nay, same village as Dwarves. So, this means that they endure the
same gravitational pull as us humans. So, this means (as I said in
my last article) that they would age visibly, as us humans do.

They could stop ageing visibly by having a better muscle/skin
structure (which would stop wrinkling) and being heavier boned and
have better body muscles than humans (which would stop the
stooping of old age).

BUT, with these better muscles and thicker bones, Dwarves would
have to be thicker than us humans. Well, we know they are, with
large legs, arms and very rotund torsos (and a lot of thick
heads!). Know, look at this body structure and look at the
lifestyle they lead. Mining, fighting and having legendary
strength and stamina. For this active lifestyle, they must have
far better and bigger muscles than we do. Yes, again we know that
they supposedly do. What is all this leading to? Well, to be able
to keep this mound of better bone, muscle etc. they would have to
have a far better internal structure than we do, with more
arteries, veins and capillaries, larger lungs etc. etc. But, how
do they intend to fuel this system? With more fuel, and what is
this fuel? Food. To consume more food (and to consume it
economically and efficiently) you need a larger digestive system.
So, with all of these bigger organs (heart, lungs, stomach),
thicker bones and better and bigger muscles, Dwarves would have to
be about the size of a human (or bigger) to house this system.

Now, I'm not saying that I know everything to do with the human
body, but I know my basic biological facts about the body,
respiratory system and digestive system and, going on the fact that
dwarves lead a very hectic, energy consuming lifestyle, they would
need to be able to have far better organs etc. than us humans. In
the case of better, I mean bigger because I don't think you can
improve more on the semi-permeable membranes that we use a lot in
digestion and breathing and many other things that can't be
improved upon - just increased in size/number. To be able to carry
all of this extra 'stuff' around with them, they would need a very
big body.

Anyway, it's late, so I'm going to have a snooze now and continue
this the same time tomorrow. Good night everyone.

Right, back again. Where was I, oh yes... very big bodies.

So, with these larger needs, Dwarves would need larger bodies, but
we all know that Dwarves have small, petit bodies (well), not
nearly big enough to house all of that extra 'stuff', the only way
they would be ale to do that is to look more like another race.
Now, what race is that? Oh yes, humans.

It was an interesting article that Mr Avery wrote, and he showed
some insight to the problem. But he overlooked one thing, he is
crackers and Dwarves don't (and can't) exist. Perhaps this is to
be expected, no one likes to find out they are impaired in some
way.

Oh, and by the way, Simon, if you look closely at the labels on
those plastic or concrete 'Dwarves' you'll probably see 'Garden
GNOME - made in Taiwan'.

                         --

Jean's article...

Oh Jean, you didn't bore us - just made us know that you fall into
the same category as Simon.

Most of your stuff about Dwarves was neither proving or disproving
the fact that hey exist, just assuming that we know that they do
and that is that. Give us evidence, arguments and the like and
I'll be sure to dismiss them!

'Retrogression to our primitive forefathers' you say, as if this
was something good. So, when you are eighty four, had two kids,
outlived most of your friends, racked with all manners of
illnesses you feel that it would be beneficial to be stooped and
shaky, JUST BECAUSE OUR FOREFATHERS DID IT? What are you saying?
They swung around in the trees singing 'I'm the king of the
swingers, yeah', but you don't see many old people doing that, do
you? No, they are doddering around on their zimmer frames, asking
people what is on the third shelf in the supermarket because they
are bent over with age. Why are they bent over? They have had
umpteen years of living on this world and for most of that they
have been battling against, as I have said, the gravitational pull
of our Earth which, after eighty years, becomes something of a
pain.

If you had someone living in space all of their lives they
wouldn't be bent over, because they had no pressure on their
bodies, no gravity. True, they will have brittle bones, but that
is another matter.

If you can prove to me that we walk bent over in our old age
because we want to copy what our forefathers did I will believe
you, but you must offer EVIDENCE!

Now, onto dragons.

What you are proposing is that the excess gas in their stomachs
(no matter the number of them) helped them to fly, making up for
their small wings.  Right, to the chemistry lab, I think.  We all
know that the lightest gas there is is hydrogen, with an atomic
weight of 1. This means that there are no gases that are lighter
than this.

But, you say, maybe there are some gases that we haven't
discovered yet that are lighter that hydrogen. Well, Miss Childs,
this would mean that there would have to be a lack of either a
proton, neutron or electron and hydrogen is at the bare minimum at
the moment. If you stripped it down any more, you'd be left with
just the quarks, but they don't form anything unless they are
together in pairs and accompanied by protons etc. So, this means
that hydrogen is the lightest gas.

Fill a dragon's stomach with hydrogen, eject it through the throat
and then strike a spark to it - you'll be having fried dragon for
the rest of your lives. Hydrogen is also a very volatile gas and
the amount that would be ignited to cause sufficient blasting
power we associate with the dragon's breath you'd need a damn good
valve system to stop the reaction spreading into that large
chamber and igniting the whole damn lot.

Talking of that large chamber, think of the amount of hydrogen
that was needed to lift just a small cabin and a few passengers
back in the days when hydrogen filled airships were all the rage
(and so was burnt human...). The balloons were huge. What you are
suggesting is that something the weight of a dragon carries enough
gas in its stomach to give it sufficient lift to stop its wings
breaking - the stomach would need to be huge, far far bigger than
the dragon himself who weighs a few tons. When have you ever seen
a dragon flying with something the size of a warehouse strapped to
its back? Never, 'cos dragons don't exist.  I keep on going on
about hydrogen, but that is because it is the lightest gas.  With
the dragons MANdatory diet, the gases produced wouldn't be
hydrogen, rather a 'pick and mix' of gases ranging from lighter
than air ones, to gases that are heavier than air.  So, even if
the hydrogen theory was feasible, you'd need a stomach 100 times
bigger to make up for the lack of pure hydrogen.

Then, Jean, what happens when the dragon does let loose its
breath? If it was able to fly with a stomach full of gas, and
ignite it without blowing itself up, how do you propose the dragon
to use its breath for a long time (as you often read about in
these fantasy books) to kill its food/enemies (one of the same,
aren't they?) and then fly off into the sunlight? By the time the
breath weapon had been used its store of gas will have been used
up and so flying will have been made impossible. After gobbling up
the food it would have to wait for a while for the food to be
digested, the gas produced and the dragon having drunk enough to
stop its scorched throat from smarting any more would be able to
fly away content, yes? Nope, the process would take a few hours
and the amount of food the dragon would have to consume would be
enormous - and its fuel (the gas) would have been exhausted by
the time it had killed, cooked and burnt half of the needed food.

I hope you have explained to the men in white coats that you
aren't normally like this - you are perfectly normal when asleep -
and they haven't locked you up for too long, just long enough.

                         --

BMK's article...

You've confused me. Are you saying Dwarves (Grimwoldesque Dwarves)
exist, but only on other planets? If so why can't they live here?
Same environment etc. so there should be no difficulty there. And
why aren't they here if they are on a diverse range of other
planets from Krynn to Middle Earth? Because they don't exist.

I'm not making the mistake in thinking that those Dwarves are like
the little people who happily toddle around this planet today.
They aren't strong, healthy and very well built. They are weaker
than the normal person and have a shorter life expectancy. That is
nowhere near what Dwarves are meant to be.

Wrinkles, yes they are always there, BMK, but that is because they
need to be there. If we didn't have wrinkles we'd be like a
balloon - have you ever tried to bend a normal balloon into
interesting positions before it bursts? It doesn't work, does it?
Everyone who is reading this take your right hand and look at it.
It has got wrinkles on it, hasn't it. Now, curl your hand and you
will see that the wrinkles act as the skin's joints - our bones
have them, so why can't our skin?

The wrinkles that I am talking of (the ones where it looks as if
someone has screwed your face up and than flattened it out, badly)
are caused by continuous wear and tear - not just from gravity,
but from a variety of other things and Dwarves would be suffering
from this mightily when they reached a hundred - an age when they
haven't reached puberty, according to 'Grimwold'.

Your ideas on Vampires, Werewolves and the living dead may be true,
but we're not discussing those just yet, maybe in an issue or two,
but as I have never heard of these diseases, I can't comment.
Other than that I don't know what I can add to this in reply to
you, BMK, except thanks for taking the time to confuse me.

Oh yes, these books that you claim to have written - could I see a
sample as I know that you must have had MANY years of writing
experience...
                         --

Oh well, that's them sorted out - wonder what they'll say to that?

I've got an idea why don't we have a little vote as to whether
Dwarves and Dragons do exist or not. All of the readers send in,
to Sue, your votes as to whether they exist or not and I'm sure
she'll be kind enough to count them and put them into a little
result box in the next issue.

At the moment it is two for D&D and one against (I honestly don't
know where BMK has put himself - a bit of fence sitting here) so,
it is up to you - do you believe that Dwarves and Dragons exist
and have existed on the planet and dragons don't need any magical
means to fly and, basically, exist. Or do you feel that although
it is a nice idea that somewhere there are a few clans of the
little people who are hefting their mighty battle axes against the
heathen Goblinoids, and next to them the dragons of gold are
throwing their flame against the armies of dark, for the good of
everyone but it just can't be - makes for good reading, but not
good practice.

So, send in your votes, I'm sure we'd all be interested to see
who, in the opinion of the SynTax readers, is correct and who's
barking up the wrong tree.

@~All votes to the usual address and I'll give the results next
@~issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------
@~And now, from someone who should know ...

Dear Medley Human Person,

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Nogwidget and I am a
dragon. I have been reading various issues of your magazine,
having broken into one of your members' houses and stolen them. I
thought there might be something interesting in them but, no, it's
all about silly games. But what really sickened me was those
stupid human persons pretending to be knowledgeable about
dragons. They know nothing! Some don't believe in dragons (tough)

and those that do either feel sorry for us (yuk!) or think up some
excuse for our behaviour (yuk!  yuk!)

Oh we exist alright - we are magical not mythical. We are the
oldest inhabitants of this planet and the only ones capable of
magic. Everything we do is by magic. You can't see us because we
don't want you to. We breath fire because we want to. We fly when
we want to. All by magic. We certainly do not and never have eaten
human persons. We might kill them now and again, but only in
sport. But eat them? Never! Human persons are not palatable to us,
so if we do kill any we make sure that we spit out every little
bit.

We don't kill human persons very often though, we prefer to 'play'
with them. I came to play with you the other day, my dear Medley
Human Person. I magically let myself into your house as I thought
I would look on your computer to see what was going into the next
issue of your magazine.  But you were using it. So, I started
playing with the electric plugs, and you should have seen your
face when the screen went blank. It was a picture.

Well, I think I'll just take a quick trip down to Devon for my
Spring holiday. Perhaps find a dwarf to 'play' with. I won't eat
him. Dwarves are even more unpalatable than human persons. I'll
just mess him around a bit. Maybe singe his beard a little.

Yours disgustingly,

Nogwidget

@~I didn't recognise the postmark on this letter and, yes, the
@~computer had crashed that week because the mains plug had fallen
@~out of the wall. Eerie ... Grimwold, I hope you are insured ...
------------------------------------------------------------------
          THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UNBELIEVABLE

                      by Jean Childs

If I was to produce an adventure based on real life and then
introduce a nine foot mouse into it, some of you might find that
objectionable. A ghost might be more acceptable, but what about a
dragon? Yes, I'm on about my favourite subject again, but this time
with a little more thought behind it.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the dragon as a myth, and
goes on to say "The belief in these creatures arose without the
slightest knowledge on the part of the ancients of the gigantic
prehistoric dragon-like reptiles". Well, let's have a look at
these prehistoric reptiles.

The dominant reptiles of the Mesozoic era were the archosaurs, who
evolved from a group known as the thecodonts. From the archosaurs
evolved three types. The first type were sluggish, four-footed,
river and swamp inhabitants. The present-day crocodile family
evolved from these reptiles. The second type was the pterosaurs
who, it appears, had thin bones that contained air spaces. These
pterosaurs were therefore very light creatures, who had wings
formed by membranes that stretched all the way down the body to
the hind legs. Their keels were not as developed as those of
birds, so it is more likely that they were capable of gliding
rather than flying. These attributes are worth bearing in mind
when you consider that certain peculiarities occur in related
species. The third type was the dinosaurs, who I believe are the
gigantic prehistoric dragon-like reptiles that the Encyclopaedia
Britannica was referring to. Both the pterosaurs and the dinosaurs
became extinct.

Am I boring you? Well before I leave the subject of prehistoric
creatures, I'll just mention that the snakes and lizards of today
belong to a group called syuamata, whose ancestors were 'probably'
the eosuchians. These eosuchians also appear to have been related
to the thecodonts.

The dragon makes it appearance in the myths and legends of almost
every country of the world, but none more so than that of China.
It is interesting to note that the twelve animals of the Chinese
zodiac, which dates from 2637 BC, contains the dragon.  The other
eleven are all creatures that exist today and are recognized as
such. The Chinese call the dragon 'lung' because it is deaf. "Its
head is like a camel's, its horns are like a deer's, its eyes are
like a hare's, its ears are like a bull's, its neck is like an
iguana, its belly is like a frog's, its scales are like a carp's,
its paws are like a tiger's and its claws are like an eagle's. It
also carries a bright pearl under its chin. It eats sparrows and
swallows, is afraid of iron, lays eggs, and its breath changes
into clouds from which come either fire or rain.

Chinese myths contain various dragons, most of which are
benevolent creatures. There are also many similarities between
some of these dragons and snakes. In fact, many old pictures of
Chinese dragons look more like snakes to me. They certainly don't
look like dinosaurs. The name 'lung' - because it is deaf - is
interesting as snakes are not sensitive to airborne waves.  So it
is possible that the snake, through embellishments, became a
dragon. It is also possible that the dragon became a snake.
Snakes lack functional limbs although a rudimentary pelvic girdle
is present in some species. In the bible, after Eve had eaten the
forbidden fruit, Genesis III, 14 reads "And the Lord God said unto
the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above
all cattle, and above every beast of the field:  upon thy belly
shall thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".
Interesting, when you think that a snake would have been 'on its
belly' to start with. But confusing, as science says that snakes
were known to be around in the latter part of the Mesozoic era.

Snakes are believed to have evolved from lizards. They often eat
birds - not necessarily sparrows and swallows. They also lay eggs.
Amongst the very ancient books of China, whose recorded history
covers over four thousand years, there is reference to the taming
and breeding of dragons and their use in pulling the chariots of
emperors. I don't think a snake, whatever size, could do that.

The dragons of the west are a very different breed, evil but
slayable. Also, the earliest stories of western dragons are
Christian in origin. Why this should be, and why they are so
different from those of the east is a topic of which I have my own
theories and a subject I think better to keep away from.

Another interesting thing about folk-lore dragons, is the way they
are often guarding treasure. Could this be related to the Chinese
dragon who carried a bright pearl under its chin? Why would the
original teller of a myth put a jewel under the dragon's chin? Why
not under its wing? Or even in its mouth?  Some lizards, along
with other creatures, have a fold of skin under their throats. In
the case of lizards, these are often brightly coloured extensions
that are stuck out as a form of display. People who speak of
having seen monsters in the American, Canadian, Scandinavian and
also Scottish lakes, often mention something on the head - a
protrusion - either on the crown or down towards the neck. Of
course, bad observation and misinterpretation has to be
considered. These two things must also be considered when
contemplating the idea of breathing fire. The Komodo dragon, a
large monitor lizard found on a small group of Indonesian islands,
has a forked tongue which, when constantly flicked in and out of
its mouth, could resemble fire.

The ancient Chinese believed that young dragons remained in their
eggs for three thousand years. One thousand in water, one thousand
in mountains and one thousand in the land of men. Now I know that
some incubation times can be a bit lengthy, but even I find this a
little unbelievable. But the idea of movement is there, and it
maybe worth a look at another many-times-removed relative. When
Nile crocodiles are about to hatch, after an incubation period of
about 90 days, they croak from within their eggs. The female then
opens the nest and, one at a time, carries each egg to the water,
rolling it against the roof of her mouth to break the shell. With
regards to the dragon, I think that the move to the water is
therefore creditable, but the rest may not have withstood the
fabrications of time.

The Chinese dragons were to be found hidden in caves of
inaccessible mountains, or coiled up in the unfathomed depths of
the sea. Some have wings supposedly with which to fly. It is hard
to imagine something the size of a dragon, once on the ground,
launch itself into the air. But it is believed that the pterosaurs
launched themselves probably from a cliff edge, the sort you might
find on an inaccessible mountain. But then, how did they get back
up there?  No, I prefer the unfathomed depths of the sea, or the
odd loch in Scotland. The Chinese believed the dragons were
weather-lords.  Floods were caused by them fighting in the water
and storms were caused by dragons fighting in the air.  Lightning
was heavenly fire sent to stop the fights, for dragons fear fire.
That may seem strange but the Chinese writer Wang Fu said "Dragon
fire and human fire are opposite. If dragon fire comes into
contact with wetness it flames, and if it meets water it burns. If
one drives it away by means of fire, it stops burning and its
flames are extinguished". The dragon rests in pools in the winter
and rises in the form of rain clouds in the spring. In autumn he
sinks back into the pools where he sleeps until spring. So, he
hibernates.  But there is definitely a strong relationship with
water. Like the modern penguin his 'wings' could be used as
flippers. He was probably semiaquatic.

Of the many opinions that I have read regarding the possibility of
the existence of dragons, there is one possibility that I have not
yet come across. That of parthenogenesis. In all the dragon
stories that I have read there is only, at any one time, one
dragon. Essentially all female populations are known among
reptiles. In such populations, reproduction occurs via
unfertilized eggs. Parthenogenetically produced individuals
display less variation and therefore form less flexible
populations.

So why have no fossils been found to support the existence of the
dragon? There are about four and a half million species of plants
and animals living today, a fraction of those that have lived in
the past. Scientist have estimated that the number of species that
have existed since life began totals over nine thousand, eight
hundred million. This is only an estimate because very few
species, about three hundred thousand, have survived in the fossil
records due to the necessary requirements for fossilization.

Whatever it was, or is, it was probably not a fire-breathing eater
of maidens. In fact, in many places, he is the guardian of
virginity. Chaperones have, at times, been known as 'dragons'.  If
that is the case, then the patron saint of England may have some
explaining to do.


                              - o -