@~Jean is back with the last (?) word on Dwarves and Dragons, and
@~I couldn't resist adding a little bit to the discussion.

               Dwarves and Dragons - THE END

                      by Jean Childs

I wasn't going to say another word about dwarves, but the
challenge was thrown at me. "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."
(J.J. SynTax May 94.)

First, I did not say that anyone 'wanted' to walk bent over
because they thought it would be beneficial. When I said
"retrogression to our primitive forefathers" I was referring to a
reaction of the body not the mind.

Secondly, and I quote from a book on prehistoric life, "The
earliest known hominids (members of the family of man) belong to
the group known as australopithecines, or 'southern apes'. These
hominids were totally different from Ramapithecus. They had
developed the habit of walking on their hind legs. How this
ability came about is uncertain." Well, I know. It was due to them
wanting to copy the dwarves. If they hadn't, we would still be
scrambling about on all fours and we probably wouldn't have all
these back problems that we get. So I was right in a way.  (Sort
of.) That is all I have to say for myself - Grimwold can take care
of himself.

I have also said all I wish to say on the authenticity of dragons.
I cannot afford to say something that might upset 'you know who',
as I value my computer too much.

But in answer to James' call for votes, I say YES to dwarves and
YES to dragons. Reason - my dictionary defines fact as a truth
that can be proved from experience or observation, and fiction as
being invented by the imagination. In my youth the only reference
to space travel in the library could be found in the science

fiction section. Therefore my definition of fiction is something
that hasn't yet been proved.
------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Where Did They Go?

             One theory put forward by Sue

There has been a lot of discussion in SynTax about dragons and
other fabulous creatures, whether or not they exist or ever have
existed.  Here is just one theory. Let me take you back many
thousands of years to the time of the Ark.

The story many of us were brought up on wasn't strictly true. The
rain fell, not for 40 days and nights, but for more than a year
and a half. The water lay on the face of the Earth for 150 days?
Make that four years or so.

As for the Ark, did you really think that two of each animal that
existed could get into one vessel 300 cubits long? Of course not.
The 'Ark' was actually the name given to the whole flotilla.
Noah's galleon was in front, towing a store ship and there were
four smaller ships, each captained by one of Noah's sons.

The animals went in two by two, so we are told. Not quite true.
Some of them went in in sevens. Why? They were edible. Well, you
didn't expect Noah and his family to live on grain and vegetables
while the flood lasted, did you? Being vegetarian wasn't so
popular in those days.

So, every animal species was on the Ark; behemoths, rhinos and
elephants in the hold for ballast, smaller animals on higher
levels. All those were in twos.

But what happened if one of a pair died?

Well, there's not much point in keeping just one of the only
breeding pair of a species in existence, is there? So Noah and his
family ate the remaining animal.  And that's what really happened
to the unicorn, griffon and all the other creatures we don't see
any more.

Allegedly.

















                              - o -