Welcome to the Megaverse® of Palladium Books®
https://mail.palladiumbooks.com/forums/
https://mail.palladiumbooks.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=129243
taalismn wrote:wonderdog wrote:[sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?
Do not ascribe to malice what can be more easily attributed to laziness.
wonderdog wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:And the term "maneater" is hardly without problems, since it would technically refer only to eating humans, specifically only to eating male humans.
Sure, common usage varied from that technical meaning over a long enough time that the new definition was recognized as valid... but if we're being technical, let's be technical.
so then lets be technical.
doesnt cannibal originate from the caribe tribe with heavy implication toward ritual and ceremony?
simply eating something for sustenance will never, ever be accurately described as cannibalism
also...
Ho·mo /ˈhoʊmoʊ/ Show Spelled[hoh-moh]
noun
1. ( italics ) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, distinguished by their large brains and a dependence upon tools. Compare archaic Homo.
from dictionary.com
so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.
sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?
wonderdog wrote:taalismn wrote:wonderdog wrote:[sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?
Do not ascribe to malice what can be more easily attributed to laziness.
hahaha very well.
taalismn wrote:Then again, there's Ian Fleming's Doctor No: "Once is Incidence. Twice is Coincidence. Three times is Enemy Action."
Killer Cyborg wrote:also...
Ho·mo /ˈhoʊmoʊ/ Show Spelled[hoh-moh]
noun
1. ( italics ) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, distinguished by their large brains and a dependence upon tools. Compare archaic Homo.
from dictionary.com
so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.
But would it also be cannibalism?
wonderdog wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:also...
Ho·mo /ˈhoʊmoʊ/ Show Spelled[hoh-moh]
noun
1. ( italics ) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, distinguished by their large brains and a dependence upon tools. Compare archaic Homo.
from dictionary.com
so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.
But would it also be cannibalism?
well if its a human eating another human then yes its cannibalism, for any other species of the megaverse its not, another term is needed. which was the contribution iv been trying to make with this topic.
Killer Cyborg wrote:wonderdog wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:also...
Ho·mo /ˈhoʊmoʊ/ Show Spelled[hoh-moh]
noun
1. ( italics ) the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans and several extinct forms, distinguished by their large brains and a dependence upon tools. Compare archaic Homo.
from dictionary.com
so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.
But would it also be cannibalism?
well if its a human eating another human then yes its cannibalism, for any other species of the megaverse its not, another term is needed. which was the contribution iv been trying to make with this topic.
And while that IS useful, I think that it's also pretty clear what Palladium means when they use the terms "cannibal," and that the term is rather commonly used with the same meaning in certain contexts outside the mainstream, like fantasy/sci-fi settings.
wonderdog wrote:hey i thought we were geeking on technical here
Except it didn't.wonderdog wrote:MY POST CAME FIRST I DEMAND RECOGNITION!!!! j/k j/k
Again, it doesn't.Killer Cyborg wrote:I disagree- "Cannibal" conveys the point they're trying to get across
And even you know that's not true. Not even in a technical sense.And the term "maneater" is hardly without problems, since it would technically refer only to eating humans, specifically only to eating male humans.
Anthropophagy is also pretty good, depending on the Green connotations of "anthro," whether it related strictly to humans and/or strictly to males
As mentioned upthread, that's because you're doing it wrong.wonderdog wrote:so eating humans and our extinct ancestors would be homophagy, another word that i do not believe exists.
Of course, maybe I'm on yr foe list.sidenote edit: if you make repeated posts ina topic and person(s) make no apparent response to them even though they address specific statements in their own posts, is it safe to assume i am on that persons foe list and they do not see my posts?