This could be a good point of view for your dragon debate. but you forgot to do one thing. chronicles; you forgot to to chronicle as to where the religion came from, how it evovled and change once it penetrated rome and became a mainstream religion, you forgot to chronicles the insertion of paganism to the original context of the bible, and forgot to chronicle the effect on this to medieval literature and art. and forgot to chronicle who was the most inlfuential, political entity during the medieval times. and you forgot to chronicle as to what these dragons symbolized in those paintings and art work (this sentence apply only to christian art as for the topic)

"sinner swallowing seraphim dragons"t........that slight resemblance the Dragon Entity to other cultural supernatural entity should not be taken to consideration, because if we do take it into consideration just to prove that the Dragon is a Universal Historical Entity then we should not dismiss the slight differences as well that would disprove it. you see, if you identify everything as one-thing then what would the border be of it not to be something else?

for refence on religion and christainity's origin pls read texts from your history books, same goes with its connection to rome, etc.

Please do so, and i believe that otterclaw also asked for a source/link of which i fail to see

becuase as far as i read, you have labeled every single thing that you would found fit as a dragon, only that. and it is not universal in appearance. and it is not universal in behavior.

lets take your example of 5 cultures drawing a lion. they would for sure draw a four legged animal, ok. they would draw an animal with fur,ok. they would draw an animal with teeth and claws, ok. but if one deviates from the other culture with a difference in description is it not common sense that they are not drawing the same thing anymore??and we are talking about cultures, people, not individuals.-do you now understand the importance of "slight differences" that you have been overlooking and the taking side and magnifying "the slight similarities"?

to talk about it having a universal behavior is pointless, behavior is such an abstract word.

but really id buy your book- i bet a thousand bucks that it would be a good leasure read.

thats because you fail to read and understand what the rest on the verses tell you with the same zest and interest as you would read the part about liviathan. and as proof, you even deducted that laviatan is a reptilian.

Here is the review of DC's major source of dragon lore which he ever so mentioned and put to reference. David E. Jones... this post might hurt your debate DC. here is the link were i got a brief info as to what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Instinct_for_Dragons


Jones then argues against the common hypothesis that dragon myths might be motivated by primitive discoveries of dinosaur fossils (he argues that there are widespread traits of dragons in folklore which are not observable from fossils), and claims that the common traits of dragons seem to be an amalgam of the principal predators of our ancestral hominids, which he names as the raptors, great cats (especially leopards) and pythons.

The hypothesis to which Jones conforms is that over millions of years of evolution, members of a species will evolve an instinctive fear of their predators, and he proposes ways in which these fearful images may be merged in artistic or cultural expression to create the dragon image and, perhaps, other kinds of hybrid monster.

Finally he suggests sociological reasons for why such images may be perceived differently at different stages of a culture to try to explain Chinese dragons are considered basically good and representative of government, but the great majority (although not all) European dragons are evil and often represent chaos.

Jones' theory was opposed in an article by Paul Jordan-Smith in the Spring 2002 issue of Western Folklore and by other authors. Jordan-Smith criticized the lack of evidence given to prove why dragon myths could not have been passed from culture to culture. He also notes that it cannot be demonstrated that the fears of ancestral hominids are coded into the human brain.


umm. it is mentioned "in artistic or cultural expression to create the dragon image".... create a dragon image....i think that fairly implies that it was imaginary.

read-research-seek the truth.

I never stated that you pull this stuff right out of your head. I believe that you have sources, however the reliability of the sources are debatable at best and whether those sources truly point out it is a "dragon".

i would give an arm to have students like you guys im my class. like DC, dragon seeker, 138, lil gremlin, weregirl 666 etc. it would be my honor to have poeple like you guys with such great intellects in my classroom....even if your views may be wrong or deviant in the lesson or lecture, id give you guys the highest grade possible depending on the grading system of the school wed be in.

Why does Dr. Jones assume these beings are 'saurian'?

The Kikituk would appear to be a derivative form (or the ancestor form) of the Tupilak of Greenlandic lore. It is described in most articles about it I could find as the 'helper' of an angakok, or Inuit shaman. The Kikituk is a carved totem which is given life through the angakok giving up part of his/hers. It can then be assigned tasks, including inflicting harm/death on enemies of the Inuit sorceror. To do this it obviously had to be able to swim as the Inuit live in an environment in which the sea features very predominantly.

I find nothing saurian in the nature of this created figure.

A link to the Kikituk

A Kikituk mask (very unsaurian)

All the sites I can find online which describe the Kikituk as saurian seem to use Jones' book as a reference, so they aren't useful as confirmation of Jones' interpretation of the myth. Do you have source links to actual Inuit legend/myth which describe the Kikituk as saurian (and not cetacean or seal)?

As an anthropologist, Jones is familiar with human artifacts, and the appearance of this creature in the art he is familiar with, may have given him this impression. I seem to recall in the television special that he illustrated his point that "ven the inueit had dragons" by producing an artifact with a dragon-like beast. But you input actually gives the Kikituk even MORE dragon like attributes..... that they are bringers of retribution, sent to accomplish a specific destructive task, such as seraphim/dragons in the Biblel, as well as supplemental Judao Christian lore.

Understand too, that what we call a kikituk now, may not be what was originally believed. For example, the seraphim were originally winged, footed reptiles in both the Egyptian and Hebrew cultures, yet in modern Christianity they have become beautiful swan-winged humanoids.

Coming on land to devour humans does not seem very Cetacen or seal like as well.

Dragons were present in Judaism from the very begginning.... some scholars going as far as saying Yahweh is actual "Yaw" or Yam, the Canannite dragon god. In fact the evidence is quite overwhelming. So it was NOT pagan Roman influence that brought dragons into Christianity, the religion itself features a dragon god and even a dragon villain. This however I would agree is an outside influence. The Christian Satan is clearly a recast of the Zoroastrian dragon Ahriman even to the point that they share an identical punishment/fate inboth theologies.

sorry DC now that i found the site i realized that you had directed me to it before....

This is what you mean i think...



Interesting...clearly egyptian. we see the quadrupedal seref ...most often depicted with human heads...and 2 winged serpents (uraeus serpents) which must have had differing significance, im not sure what. and what looks like a winged scarab.

I dont believe that the brazen serpent was any of these...at least initially.
You see it is the 'function' of the serpent, initially...and Moses' Midianite influence that suggests that it was more like those forged serpents that have been found in midianite territories, and those wingless examples (used for the same purpose) found in Egypt. Perhaps later they replaced the original with an uraeus...or gave the original wings....who knows....neither of us.

The Uraeus was popularly a symbol of kingship and the realm, it protected him...and the realm etc.
This would not be appropriate for use in the context of Numbers.

...later as a cult totem, maybe.

Edit: its a shame the detail on the piece is hard to make out.

Yes, and despite the rants of certain naysayers here, it is now very close to completion, and has so much material, that it will have to become two parts.

Actually no, the quadrepedal serref in Egypt has an animal head on its real hieroglyph, and is called a FIERY SERPENT in its Hymns. This strongly suggest, that like the winged and footed mushushu, it had a serpent-like head to justify being described as a serpent. But literature still calls typical dragons, "serpents" as well. Nothing has changed in 5,000 years.

Also the Bible never says the seraph is a mere snake. This is your false assumption. The Hebrews had many other words to use if the creature was meant to be a mere snake. The Seraph is a heavenly creature with reptilian distinctions as the most knowledgable scholars maintain. It is modern christianity that has transformed the Seraph from a winged reptilian throne guard to a common viper in complete contradicition of both scripture and archaeology.

It is an interesting argument that has some real basis in reality, but is not often given much kudos (at least around here).

We know that this instinctive fear of predators exist, take for example the Dodo.....

Since it had no land predators on the island it knew no fear, and would happily amble upto sailors and their dogs....easy pickings...

now while an ostrich is far bigger, and potentially more dangerous, youd have a hard time getting close to one in the wild.

just an illustration of a well made point.

I am aware of the hieroglyph you refer to, but im not sure that it is a particularly common one. only having seen a couple of examples ever...and swansea uni has a very well respected Egyptology dept.
Im also sure that they are in most cases of depiction, and artefact....Human headed eagle-lions. like those that support pharonic thrones....and cananite ones...they were quite popular.

I dont know much about the hieroglyph, whether it is home grown or representative of an import.
Now they may have started as mushushu looking beasties...that evolved human heads (evolution of a concept).

It is clear that one of these serefs was not put on a stick by moses....as they appear in sculpture there is nothing reptilian about them at all.

....about the seraph snake thing, sorry not my false assumption...but that of the Jewish Encyclopedia scholars....the esteemed ones.

OK, let me get this straight. "God" or Yahweh is a dragon, because the text apparently explains that he has fire coming out of his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, and that his name comes from the name of another dragon's. This is taking the Bible too literally. Bible verses are like beautiful poetry, designed to inspire wonder and surprise. When it says he has fire coming out of his mouth, it means that his words are powerful and what he says can make things wonderful. The smoke for his nose makes him appear dragon-like, to create some fear and "godliness". And his name? Could only be a random.....you know...really long word that means two things just happen to be similar, the one that starts with a C.

DC, you're reaching here. Many mythological creatures - especially those associated with totemic qualities - have a retribution theme in their legends. Stories abound in all cultures of 'summoned agents of retribution' - but to then claim such a quality 'adds weight to the draconic nature' of these supernatural servants is speculation at its most extreme.

There is no value in claiming we do not know the original form of these creatures of legend either. You are falling into guesswork and struggling to make all these cultural myths 'fit' into your draconic quasi-religion. The carvings made of the Kikituk could be expressed (with a vivid imagination) as many different 'types' of mythological creature if you only look at the form - but the legends I have read state they are constructed by the shaman and act as a familiar spirit, hardly consistent with the draconic image you are trying to build. The forms these carvings take seem to be twisted images of humans rather than saurian, although I did see forms which looked remarkably walrus-like.

Of course the Egyptian serref was reptilian, you are simply ignoring the ancient hymns that describe it as a serpent, just as you ignore the ancient hymns to Ea that describe him as a scaly clawed, reptile. The Egyptian hymn implies it is a frightening living creature.

It is probably the human headed lions and such, creatures that could not exist in nature unlike a 'dragon' were mostly though of as symbolic and decorative artifacts.

Im not ignoring anything, just keeping things in their proper context.
You are aware of poetic imagery, personification, animation, symbolism....i presume.

I fail to see why one composite construct is more likely to exist than another.

If we suppose a dragon attacked a village, a clever shaman might claim he caused this, just as he might give a supernatural reason why the seal hunt was poor or why there was an eclipse. This is the legend that would be preserved, even though the Shaman never controlled the dragon.

I cannot speak for Dr. Jones. I don't know what artifacts he cited that gave the Kikituk a saurian appearance. I will watch more carefully the next time the documentary is shown on television.

No there is far more evidence in my other posts. Even the gnostic christians and Persian culture declared Yahweh was a dragon.

As for Yaw and Yahweh:

They both are sworn enemies of Ba'al Haddad.

They both are the favored "son" of the high God El.

The both have the same consort Asherah, a female deity also connected with serpents/dragons.

And yahweh's' diet of lambs, calves, first born children and midianite virgins also seem more in line with a dragon than an "old guy with a long beard".

Yahweh's closest associates, the seraphim also seem to be flying serpents or dragons. His offspring with Asherah, maybe?

wow.. thats all i can say is wow...look up this show online and send a link!! you never send links!!! oh wait you once did claiming the pope had a pet dragon.

yahweh was a person ok? a documented man who was said to translate and help write the origanal bible.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/yahweh

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/middle-...hp?deity=YAHWEH
no mention of dragons.

I can't find any info anywhere that related Yahweh to a dragon, other than your own, DC.

Look, putting everything aside, I'm trying to find at least someone else's opinion or data that backs up what you say - but it's just not there.

I don't see why it's so hard to post some sources, some examples. Just to back up, just to convince us that you're more credible than we currently think you are.

Why can't you just repost those sources? Or at least refer to the topic they were posted in?

You can't keep saying you've posted them before - NO one here has seen them before. Now either they ain't been here long enough or haven't seen the topics you posted them in. Why not just show us again.. and I'll make a point of refering everyone back to your post every time you ever get accused of not sourcing ever again.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm not being a jerk. I'm just baffled by your logic that you only need to post something once to prove what you insist on typing a billion times...? You obviously care to teach and inform people, so source over and over.

hi Hajime........
perhaps to save DC the insufferable hassle, here are 2 websites his theory relies heavily on.

I must point out that they only support his theory so far...and only on certain points...

www.bibleorigins.com
and
http://www.rae.org/pteroets.html

his theory is "cutting edge" and so there is no direct precedent for his claim that Dragons were universal, based on a single quadrupedal winged beast, and were believed by early man to be gods.

other aspects like, yahweh is yaw, and yaw is Ea etc have been postulated before...but DC picks and chooses bits from here and there to patch together his theory.

It hinges on his identification of Enki (the Sumerian version of Ea) as a mushushu ...which he and others calls a dragon....i contest this identification.
I also contest that YHWH is simply Yaw....He is more than that, an amalgamation of a variety of deities.
I also contest that these composite constructs actually existed and were witnessed, not only in sumeria, but all over the world.
And finally i contest that nessie is one...and also that she exists.


Ippon Soromade!

Is it me... again you deduct everything that you could find that would suit you as a dragon just because you found a little similirairty and again disregard the diference that would also despute your claim. there is no limit to you is there?

and what of your resource....David E. Jones...and his book.. An instinct for dragons...that you have so much used as reference to point out that what you claim is real....do you even realized that you are putting dirt in his name? AND DEFAMING HIS BOOK???? I POSTED THIS ALREADY FOR YOU. MAYBE U MISSED IT. HERE IS THE LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Instinct_for_Dragons...DO YOU EVEN REALIZED HOW SILLY IT IS TO NOTE ONE SOURCE THAT DOES NOT REALLY SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? IT DOES NOT TOTALY SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM! IT DOESNT! AND AGAIN... YOU EVEN PICKED UP INFORMATION FROM HIS WORK AND WARPED IT UP TO SOMETHING ELSE LIKE WHAT YOU DID IN THIS POST. do you even realized as to what the full context of that page and of his work represents????



i changed my mind, i thought you had a brilliant mind, i will not buy your book. Briliant minds do not use other intellects work falsely as you have done to DAVID E. JONES. it is utterly criminal, not only that you also have defamed the University of Central Florida where this gentleman works for! shame on you young man for defouling the works of this man.. I dare you answer this. and do not divert to the fact that you have dishonored him, the Univerisity that he works for, and his students, and his profesion! you basically turmed them into clowns. ANSWER THIS.

1. Why did you used him as a reference knowing that his works do not even support your claim? did you know that his work does not support your claim?
2. What made you beleive that his works support your claim, are you saying that he is that bad a narrator?
3. Why did you flamboyantly pick out texts from his work only to use them to your ends?
4. Did you really read his work or just interpreted it the way youd understand it.

Welcome to the dragon debate kidchaos.

yeah... thanks lil gremlin...it really eats me up when someones actions defame the people that they are referring to. Now im not sure if DC is really proving a point or just fanning a flame.

Indeed, kidchaos! Now, try reading his relentless, repetative, unsubstantiated claims for like three years.
Without him giving even the slightest bit of concideration to anyone elses thoughts, and information.

I never claimed the Pope "had a pet dragon". I stated that Dr. Peter Horgath stated in his dragon book that there was a legend about a Pope that had a pet dragon that was fed literally hundreds of people. Get his book and you will see I am right.

I did say though that if the legend is true, that in all probablility it would be the Pope who is the "pet" of the dragon! Or puppet might be a better word. Actually I wish we had more info on this legend. I am positive Dr. Hogarth did not make it up.

I think I've solved the mystery. DC is actually a dragon who's learned to use a computer.

BTW, why did you decide to divide your book into two volumes DC? Too much info or sequel-mania?

My, that venomous attack was certainly unexpected. I wonder if you are "bi-polar"?

Jones has been discussed on the dragon threads many times before. A newbie here like yourself apparently didn't realize this.

I NEVER said he supported my views of dragons being real creatures.

I merely stated that his book provides good evidence that dragon legends were universal, and as an anthropologist he has access to many ethnographical collections that show similar, dragon-like creatures all around the world. In his own words on the Tv show he said something like" "Every human culture had dragons." Saying this, he did not mean literal dragons, but dragons in their legends.

The only reason Jones was brought up this last time was his assertion that the Inuit believed in a man-eating saurian, dragon-like creature.

Befouling and Defaming him and his university? Because I cited his claim that the inuits had a dragon legend? I bet even he would think you are nuts.

I don't think I am picking and choosing. I believe there is overwhelming evidence for my theories. the "differences" are quite negligable compared the the enormous similairies in world wide dragon legends, and the cryptid reports that may be those very dragons. I think the fact that there IS all of that evidence, is why my ideas upset so many people here. But enough really bright people have read enough of my manuscript and are impressed with it, that I could care less what the peanut gallery here thinks.

Too much info and my particular book deal limits the size of the publication. Also, two volumes neatly mirrors on of the main sources and subjects the book is about.

I'll confess this much, the avatar pic is a real photograph.

Publishers. But what else can you do?



I thought so.

I have prepared a long and detailed list of reasons why Yahweh is a dragon, surely you have read it. And many people tried, and none could really refute what I said. Type Gnostic Christian Yahweh and Dragon into google and you will find much material about yahweh being a dragon. The Zoroastrian Denkard states Yahweh is a dragon. And what would you described Yahweh to be, if the bible says he has wings, spews fire from his mouth, smoke from his nostrils as is given lambs, calves, and virgins? Oh, and all of the Genesis stuff that he does, was done by a Sumerian dragon first.

I believe that your theory often shows a lack of understanding of the materials you treat as evidence, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp some really basic concepts.

just my opinion.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

just my opinion.

You see, I DO understand it. The problem is that too many people here let their own misconceptions cloud their judgement. So these people do not understand it.

Have you ever seen the way a herd of horses will bold from the shadow of a low flying helicopter or airplane?

Prehaps it is a memory of the huge birds that once preyed on ungulates, or prehaps from the time when they were much smaller creatures, and more vulnerable to aerial predation. Unless, of course, you must insist that there are current areal predators of wild horses.

If you feel venom on that post, well, you shouldnt, there is no venom here but personal distaste to what you have done. But tell me, why cant you answer the questions???? And again you state that his book supports your idea that dragon legends are universal when the author himself does not point this out. I am seriously doubting that you have even understand the book. Or even have read it. But enough of my speculations.

You did not cited his claims, as i read thru that post that you used that peice of information again and again you did not cited his claims but rather you used his words and idea then slammed it to concrete your claim to prove the universality of dragons while the honorable author meant for that as something else. He pointed this out as "dragon-like" and not as "dragon". And im sure you know the diference about what is "like" and what is "authentic". Im sure you know that to cite something from a context or a body as a reference, the other peices of information left behind should support the context taken, or do you even know this?

Answer the questions. Fail to answer these again would prove that there is no logic in your madness. And pls, what you recently posted does not answer any of these questions.

1. Why did you used him as a reference knowing that his works do not even support your claim? did you know that his work does not support your claim?
2. What made you beleive that his works support your claim, are you saying that he is that bad a narrator?
3. Why did you flamboyantly pick out texts from his work only to use them to your ends?
4. Did you really read his work or just interpreted it the way youd understand it.

lil gremlin is right,



so far, you have yet to post a resource that purely supports your claims. but rather bits and peices of information from one source (that does not entirely support your claims) to weave your tattered banneret.

hey THE SOURCE, that was a good one, that was a funny witty remark.
ummm that "real photo"?? i think they made "it" say cheeze as they took the picture....sory, couldnt help joke on it.

DC,

kidchaos has, rather tangentially, raised a fairly important point.

Is Dr. Jones aware of your use of his book/theory as support for your own in a (soon-to-be) commercial publication? Does he agree with your interpretation of his theory?

If not, if you haven't communicated with Dr. Jones nor got his approval for your referencing his work with a certain interpretation you could potentially find yourself in a bit of strife.

So, could you lease answer for our peace of mind whether Dr. Jones agrees with your interpretation of his work?

Are you kidding? I AM NOT CLAIMING JONES SUPPORTS MY IDEAS, I NEVER DID. Jones does say that all human cultures had dragon legends because all humans feared those predators that form the composite dragon. That's his theory in a nutshell. He uses world wide dragon artifacts and myths to support his claim.

I think his theory is invalid because the earliest human cultures DID NOT fear these dragons, as he supposes. Quite the contrary, the dragons were their beneficient gods, bringing rain and technology and they loved and praised them in their hymns. Dragons as human predators comes much later, and were simply the result of picking the most awesome 'monster.entity' imaginable for a hero to slay, merelyto enhance the status of the hero, or, to popularize a new religion.

Of course he does not believe dragons are real creatures. I NEVER claimed that he did. And I cannot see why you think it important if he does or doesn't. It has no bearing whatsoever whether I point out that the Enclyclopedia Britannica says "the Inuits had a legend about a giant man-eating saurian" or if Dr. Jones said it. In this case he said it. I NEVER SAID that Jones BELIEVED the Inuit 'dragon' was real. What part of that don't you understand.

So I am not allowed to make the statement that "on page 18 Jones states that the Inuits had this legend" becasue Jones doesn't believe in dragons? What kind of idiot-logic is that? Are you nuts? Since when was citing a simple statement in a book predicated on whether or not the author of the source supports your theory? Would I need make sure Encyclopedia Brittanica's authors 'believe in dragons' if I had quoted that source instead of Jones?

This is ludicrous. The hecklers complain becasue I don't repeat my sources in every post, and now they complain becasue when I give a source for simple fact (the claim that the Inuits had a legend about a saurian, dragon-like creature), then I'm damned because the man who I quoted in a published work may or may not agree with me that the legend might be based on a real animal?

I can't believe this is coming from you, Leonardo. From the 'usual' nutty hecklers yes, but not from you.

Hopefully this answers Kidchaos too. Welcome to the 'DC's nutty hecklers club', by the way.

"et tu brute?"

how dramatic.

To be honest dc, you can only blame yourself....this 'new batch of hecklers' have rarely, if ever, seen you post references to your claims....so that when they do they get the impression that you are trying to hide the fact that your theory relies very heavily on one or two sources.

It is true however that you misrepresent your sources, thank goodness most of them are dead, or some may have something to say about it.

yahweh was a person ok? a documented man who was said to translate and help write the origanal bible.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/yahweh
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/middle-...hp?deity=YAHWEH
no mention of dragons.
ok you never reply when i have links DC and yes you did claim the pope may still have a dragon.

Reading through an ancient manuscript the other day i came upon a folded piece of papyrus, on it in archaic hieroglyphs was a drama...After minutes of solid graft i was able to translate the work...and now i present it to you guys.

John and Sloth were walking in the country, heading towards the town called 'Reason'.
As they pass a tree Sloth bends down...

Sloth: Diamond?
john: No Sloth thats an egg, it must have fallen from the tree, but seems to have survived the fall...put it down, weve got to keep moving.
Sloth: Diamond.
John: No Sloth, it's an egg...see its brown, diamonds arent brown.
Sloth: Diamond!!!
John: No sloth, a bird layed the egg, its fallen from her nest up there in the tree, see you can see the nest.
Sloth: DIAMOND !!!!!
John: Ok whatever, lets get moving, we are not getting anywhere with this.

Sloth: Actually you are wrong, and it just proves your ignorance on the matter. If you knew more about the subject you'd know that this is a diamond.
John: Look sloth, its an egg. Im a jeweller, i work with diamonds every day, i have seen the process by which they are taken from the ground, cleaned, cut and polished so that they appear as they do in shop windows.
Sloth: You clearly know nothing about the subject....its a diamond....birds eat carbon based food, some of this crystalises in the bird's stomach and it grows like a kidney-stone untill its passed all smooth and ovoid.
John: No, this is a diamond....see how it is different? And that's not how diamonds are produced, they are found in the rock.
Sloth: You embarrass yourself with your ignorance, i will sell this diamond for millions of lira.
John: Diamonds are one of the Hardest carbon substances on earth. you could not break one in your hand.

Sloth lifts the object over his head and clenches his fist...the egg breaks and runs down over his brow.

John: I tried to tell you but you wouldnt listen...
Sloth: You are ignorant and just here so that you can attack me, and now ill have to find another diamond.
John: but it was an egg.
....sloth ignores john and walks off in the opposite direction to the town, carrying what is left of his object.
John walks after him and before long they are heading again towards Reason.

After a while Sloth again bends down an picks something up.
Sloth : Diamond.
John: No Sloth that's a cat....
Sloth: D-I-A-M-O-N-D.

Fin.

well children i think youll all agree, the ancients really were on to something.

That is the best thing ever written on these forums.

Perfect!!!! A one word substitution and it is many of the threads here!! Thank you for a wonderful read!!!