Number of voters: 1136
Number of votes: 47 (4%)
Number of votes: 73 (6%)
Number of votes: 129 (11%)
Number of votes: 149 (13%)
Number of votes: 52 (5%)
Number of votes: 197 (17%)
Number of votes: 24 (2%)
Number of votes: 20 (2%)
Number of votes: 387 (34%)
Number of votes: 58 (5%)
2008-02-26 [Paul Doyle]: Yes, but as long as the witch floats whatever the circumstance . . . then she is made of wood---BURN HER!
2008-02-27 [Kurai Tenma]: I LOVE how my point was twisted. Hence, I avoided the situation. However, my point was "dragon" is a generic term, and your typical dragon isn't typical to everyone. Also, I explained the type of dragon you are considering to be typical is not "dragon" either. It's just the one you associate with the term.
Paul, you're awesome. Though, if a piece of wood floats in water, and still becomes water logged and soaked, and won't burn. How can you test if the witch is made of wood by trying to make her float in water? She wouldn't burn after that. =P
2008-02-27 [Khronos Atmosphaera]: Ha ha! I'm just playing along.
2008-02-27 [Paul Doyle]: Kurai . . . perhaps give Brave Sir Robin a Holy Hand Grenade to toss at the watersoaked witch?
2008-02-27 [SilverFire]: Hm, if you're talking to me, Kurai, I wasn't trying to twist your point. Nor is the definition used by the ECM my idea of a typical dragon. I'm pretty sure I didn't mention what my idea of a typical dragon is, so I'm also at a loss as to how you know it's not typical. :)But I suppose you mean by 'the dragon you consider to be typical' to be the definition from the ECM?' I don't see you explaining anywhere that that definition is wrong, though. :( But, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be employing the term 'dragon' in two separate senses. In once sense as referring specifically to dragons as an individual type of creature, and in another using it as a general term for all "draconic" creatures. The ECM page doesn't refer to it in a sense of 'any draconic' creature, just as dragons.
2008-02-29 [Nita]: Mmm... *puts up an alarm note as per Paul's suggestion* Perhaps we need an official alarm boss :)
2008-02-29 [Paul Doyle]: Heed the alarm-call, everyone . . . you know you want to :P
2008-02-29 [Paul Doyle]: (You also don't want Pauly the Anthro-Dragon to dry-hump you if you refuse to vote . . . )
2008-02-29 [EnigmaFlame]: Dragons rule!!!
2008-03-01 [Leper Khan]: Why are we voting on a typical dragon? Anyone who is not blind has seen a typical dragon. Where's the most creative/imagi
2008-03-02 [SilverFire]: They're to illustrate an information page on dragons, and on an information page, it's best to have illustrations of a typical dragon. :) Maybe we'll do a contest for imaginative dragons next. ;)
2008-03-04 [kat khaotic]: No fore arms = wyvern Arms =dragon
2008-03-04 [Paul Doyle]: Wyvern = old argument. Arrgh!
2008-03-05 [Khronos Atmosphaera]: omg... one more vote... to be one thousand.
2008-03-05 [Paul Doyle]: Wow . . . 1000 votes! o__O
2008-03-05 [SilverFire]: If you find the comments so frustrating Paul. You should stay away.No one is forcing you to check here, but people are allowed their opinions, even if you think it's old.
2008-03-06 [loam]: (i.) seems to have realism problems. the wings seems to have the appearance of stone. though good, the stonish quality lost my vote.
2008-03-07 [Ronin-Sparrow]: Funny, the stonish quality is precisely what got my vote. :D
2008-03-08 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: wow... I didn't even clue in that 3 was a wyvern.. and I voted for it. :P